Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM COUNSELLORS OF STATE

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) ACT, 1945

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Henry Studholme) reported the Answer of the Counsellors of State to the Addresses as follows:

We Counsellors of State, to whom have been delegated certain Royal Functions as specified in Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated the 20th November, 1953, have received your Addresses to Her Majesty praying that the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and the various Defence Regulations and enactments which you specify be continued in force respectively for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four

We will give directions accordingly.

Elizabeth R.

Margaret.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS (EMERGENCY ORDERS)

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the Household reported the Answer of the Counsellors of State to the Addresses as follows:

We Counsellors of State, to whom have been delegated certain Royal Functions as specified in Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated the 20th November, 1953, have received your Addresses to Her Majesty praying that the Patents (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1953, and the Registered Designs (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1953, be made in the form of the respective Drafts laid before Parliament.

On Her Majesty's behalf we will comply with your request.

Elizabeth R.

Margaret.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (SAVE THE CHILDREN FUND)

Dr. Stross: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has noted the work, details of which have been sent to him, of the Save the Children Fund in Korea, which has established a centre in Pusan for the purpose of teaching Korean doctors and midwives modern methods of maternity and child welfare; and whether he will allocate funds in order that at least two more such centres be established.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, Her Majesty's Government's contributions towards relief and reconstruction in Korea are made through United Nations agencies, and in particular through the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency. Her Majesty's Government do not, therefore, feel able to make a direct contribution to the fund referred to by the hon. Member.

Dr. Stross: While accepting the inherent difficulties in making direct contributions which might open the door to any charitable organisation to enter, may I ask the Minister if he thinks it possible, in view of the importance and desirability of this rather fine piece of work and the cost to the organisation mentioned in the Question, that a further specific contribution or part of the contribution already made to the United Nations might be earmarked by the Government for this purpose?

Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree with the hon. Member about the fine work that is being done by this fund. I do, however, think that on the whole it is an undesirable precedent to earmark funds or portions of them for particular purposes. In fact, the Reconstruction Agency has allotted 2,600,000 dollars to the various voluntary agencies, and part of that money has gone to this fund.

Dr. Stross: Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that there is a precedent for doing this three years ago, when the sum of £10,000 was allocated through the Relief Organisation for Refugees to help Arab refugees?

Mr. Lloyd: I will look at that precedent, but I can really hold out no hope.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving moral support to the Save the Children Fund by sending a Government message backing its work?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. (MOVEMENT OF TROOPS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what agreements member Governments of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation may move on their own initiative troops placed by them under the operational control of the Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The member Governments of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation have concluded no agreements which debar them in peace-time from moving on their own initiative, in order to meet what they consider to be a national emergency, troops placed by them under the Supreme Allied Commander.

Mr. Henderson: Does that reply mean that British divisions could be moved from Germany without consulting the Supreme Commander and without any obligation to replace them with equivalent formations?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Then what does it mean? Are we to understand that, as one of the member countries has removed some of its forces from under the control of the Supreme Commander, the United Kingdom forces could be removed without consultation with the North Atlantic Treaty Council?

Mr. Lloyd: This matter is governed both by the North Atlantic Treaty and by certain agreements entered into at Brussels in 1950, and in our view therefore it certainly would not be possible for us to act in the way described by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shinwell: In that event, wild the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain

why it is that one of the member nations, a signatory to the North Atlantic Treaty, has removed troops from under the control of the Supreme Commander—the case of Italy?

Mr. Lloyd: I am certainly not responsible for the actions of another Government. I have endeavoured to state the position.

Mr. Shinwell: This is a very important matter, and I think we should have the point clarified. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know the answer, he ought to tell us. Will he say whether, if one country, a signatory to the Treaty, can remove its troops from under the control of the Supreme Commander, there is anything to prevent United Kingdom troops from being removed?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman has missed out of his last question the matter of consultation.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Under-developed Countries (Loans)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the United Kingdom delegate at the United Nations to support the plan for the establishment and operation of a special fund for grants-in-aid and low interest long-term loans to underdeveloped countries for their economic development.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The plan for a special fund has been debated in the Economic Committee of the General Assembly. Two resolutions, for which the United Kingdom delegate voted, were adopted without opposition. I am arranging to place copies of these resolutions in the Library of the House.

Mr. Henderson: Can the House take it that, in the view of the Government, the urgency of this vital problem of the development of under-developed areas is not to be determined by the date of the signature of a future world disarmament agreement; and can we take it that in the meantime the Government will give all moral and material support to the establishment of this special fund as asked for by the resolution of the Second Committee, passed on 25th November?

Mr. Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government certainly emphatically support investment in and development of underdeveloped countries. So far as this fund is concerned, our position is set out in the resolution for which we voted. There are certain technical considerations to be taken into account, and we have to be certain in regard to a fund of this sort that it will serve the purpose for which it is intended.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can we take it that the Government accept the principle that there must be a grant-in-aid for schemes which are not self-supporting, and do not give a monetary return, in order that the subsequent development scheme may be carried out?

Mr. Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government certainly accept that as a general principle, but what I think are still required are technical studies as to whether this fund will serve the purpose for which it is intended.

Technical Assistance Programme (U.K. Contribution)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the response made by other countries at the pledging conference of the United Nations Expanded Technical Assistance Programme, he will increase this country's contribution by a further £50,000.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The position remains as stated in the reply given to the hon. Lady on 11th November. Her Majesty's Government propose to increase their contribution by a further £50,000 if and when the total pledged exceeds 25 million dollars. The amount so far pledged is 23·7 million dollars.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in the United Kingdom contribution this year to £600,000 still leaves us £300,000 less than we should be contributing if we were giving 10 per cent. of the Technical Assistance budget, as we are giving 10 per cent. of the general United Nations budget? In view of that fact, will he not waive the point and give a lead to the world by making this additional £50,000 contribution, seeing that the total figure so far pledged has almost reached the one promised?

Mr. Lloyd: The United Kingdom has increased by 20 per cent. the contribution this year, which is not bad.

Korean Reconstruction and Relief Agency (Staff)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total staff employed by the United Nations Korean Reconstruction and Relief Agency; and how many of these are based in Korea.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Agency's latest report shows the total staff employed on 1st October, 1953, as 381, of which 295 are based in Korea.

Mr. Beswick: Is not it also a fact that there are at least 104 in the United States? While we must recognise that the United States provide most of the money that seems to be an unduly large number which has caused a certain amount of cynical comment about the United Nations Organisation.

Mr. Lloyd: My figures are not the same as those of the hon. Gentleman. I am told that by 1st October the staff in New York had been reduced from 99 to 54 and that the Washington staff had been reduced from 18 to seven, so steps have been taken to reduce the number based in the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORTS TO SPAIN (ARMS AND EQUIPMENT)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far there has been any modification of the Regulations governing the export to Spain of arms and war equipment as a result of the Mutual Defence Agreement of 26th September between the United States and Spain.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir.

Mr. Jeger: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the agreement between the United States and Spain which specifies the payment of 226 million dollars of which no less than 141 million dollars is earmarked for military aid? Has he any information as to the quality of the military aid and does he still rely on the export of obsolete or out-of-date military equipment from this country to bolster up our trade?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman's Question related to whether there had been any modification of the regulations, and that is what my answer was directed to. There have been no modifications.

Sir T. Moore: Why should not help be given to the first country to accept the challenge of Communism?

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the description and value of war material exported to Spain during 1953.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: "Common-use items" and military material licensed for export to Spain during the first nine months of 1953 amounted to £1,385,582. No figures are yet available for October or November.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (BRITISH CLAIMS)

Mr. Speir: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he appreciates that claims made by British subjects against Japan for loss or damage to property suffered in Shanghai by such subjects prior to the outbreak of war in 1941 have still not been met; and what action he proposes to take to hasten consideration of such claims.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of pre-war claims against Japan for property loss or damage sustained by British subjects in China. Claims of individuals which had been presented to the Japanese Government before the war and had not been settled have been presented again. Early this year, the Japanese stated that their relevant archives were missing and that they would require copies of the claims. Most of these have already been supplied and Her Majesty's Ambassador is pressing for their speedy consideration.

Mr. Speir: Will my right hon. and learned Friend realise that many of these claimants are aged and infirm people and, furthermore, these claims have been outstanding for 12 years or more? Will he take further steps to persuade the Japanese Government to meet them?

Mr. Lloyd: We shall certainly do all we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

Arrested British Subjects

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British subjects have been taken into custody in Egypt in the past year without a charge being formally preferred; and in how many cases British subjects have been denied facilities for prompt communication with the British consular authorities.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Eighteen British subjects, almost all Cypriots or Maltese, have been imprisoned in Egypt during the past year without formal charges having been preferred. Although in one case a British subject was arrested and deported without prior notification to British consular authorities, facilities for contact with our authorities have usually been granted. As far as I am aware, only one British subject is now held in an Egyptian prison on an unspecified charge.

Mr. Maitland: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is an uncivilised record and that there is great resentment in this country that we should continue to negotiate with a country under such duress and pressure?

Mr. Lloyd: As these cases arise they are the subject of individual protest to the Egyptian authorities, and in some cases that has involved the immediate release of the person concerned. We take a serious view of them and do what we can to correct them as they arise.

Mr. Ferny hough: While deprecating the attitude of the Egyptian Government in this matter, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he agrees that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones? Does not he feel that it would be rather crude and unbecoming for us to object to what Egypt is doing so long as the same practice obtains in parts of the British Colonial Empire?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding the circumstances in which two British subjects, Mrs. Butcher and Mr. Clarke, were recently arrested by the Egyptian authorities; what charges were brought against them; what facilities were accorded to


Her Majesty's Consul to visit them in custody; and what treatment they received while in custody.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Mrs. Butcher was arrested at Suez on 19th November. A consular official visited her in prison in Cairo, where she was detained for two nights under most unsatisfactory conditions. Two offers of a consular bond were refused, but following intervention by Her Majesty's Embassy, she was finally released on 22nd November and left Egypt immediately.
Mr. Clarke was arrested in Alexandria on 21st November, but released four days later on consular bail. Her Majesty's Consul visited him in prison and found conditions better than those under which Mrs. Butcher was detained. Mr. Clarke has now been given one month in which to leave Egypt. No charge has been preferred against either Mr. Clarke or Mrs. Butcher.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend first, whether Mrs. Butcher left Egypt of her own volition, or whether she was forced to leave by the Egyptian authorities; and, second, whether the British Ambassador has been instructed to make any protest whatever about the case of Mrs. Butcher or Mr. Clarke?

Mr. Lloyd: In answer to the first part of the question, Mrs. Butcher was forced to leave. She did not go voluntarily. Both arrests have been the occasion for formal protests by Her Majesty's Chargé ďAffaires in Cairo and also through the Egyptian Ambassador in London.

Suez Canal Zone (Incidents)

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many attacks by shooting or with the use of explosives have been made on British installations or civil or military personnel in the Suez Canal Zone during the past year.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: One hundred and two.

Mr. Maitland: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say when the Government will give authority to the British Commander on the spot to take adequate reprisals to protect the lives of his men?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the word "reprisals" is an appropriate one in this connection. Steps are taken to protect the lives of British personnel. But I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very bad record indeed. It is one which is the subject of constant representations to the Egyptian Government and it is a matter which makes negotiations extremely difficult.

Chargé ďAffaires, Cairo (Mr. Murumbi)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fresh evidence submitted to him demonstrating the incorrectness of his original information, he will instruct the British Ambassador at Cairo to withdraw the charge made by the Chargé ďAffaires against Mr. Joseph Murumbi of being an emissary of Mau Mau.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It is true that on 28th August Her Majesty's Chargé ďAffaires at Cairo did, in a communication to the Egyptian Government, refer to Mr. Murumbi as:
variously described as Vice-President of the African Union, an illegal organisation, and as a representative of the Mau Mau movement in Kenya.
That description was in accordance with reports in the Egyptian Press relating to interviews with Mr. Murumbi. Those reports were not at the time contradicted by Mr. Murumbi. Since that date Mr. Murumbi has stated that he is not a representative of Mau Mau and is, in fact, opposed to the movement. Her Majesty's Government are glad to hear this and trust that this Question and answer have clarified the position.

Mr. Brockway: While I appreciate that recognition, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that Mr. Murumbi repudiated those reports while he was in Cairo, when he called a special Press conference for the purpose and issued a statement to the Press agencies in Egypt? As many of us who know Mr. Murumbi have no doubt upon this matter, and in view of the correction which has appeared in "The Times," will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that the charge is withdrawn?

Mr. Lloyd: In my answer I dealt with the information in the possession of Her Majesty's Chargé ďAffaires at the time the communication was made to the Egyptian Government. With regard to the latter part of the supplementary, I think that today's Question and answer have dealt with that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORTS TO CHINA (WARLIKE STORES)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much of the financial aid supplied to the United Kingdom by the United States Government has been used to finance the shipment of warlike stores to China.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir.

Mr. Peyton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend inform the American Government of the intense and widespread resentment felt in this country, and in this House, at the vicious and slanderous allegations made by Senator McCarthy that this country has been utilising American aid to finance the sinews of war for Red China?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the American Government are well aware of our view in this matter.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is it not a fact that this country has never shipped any warlike stores to China?

Mr. Lloyd: That is certainly the case during the time of the civil war, and since the United Nations Resolution was passed we have not done so either.

Mr. Shinwell: But if the American Government are aware of the facts, is not it possible to convey to them the suggestion that they might in turn convey the information to Senator McCarthy?

Mr. Lloyd: If the right hon. Gentleman sees what one distinguished American statesman said yesterday he will see that it is substantially well-known.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not it a fact that very large quantities of warlike stores which have been sent to Russia in the course of normal exports have found their way to Red China—notably heavy electrical equipment including generators which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for sending?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRIESTE (FIVE-POWER CONFERENCE)

Mr. Foot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposed conference to discuss the Trieste dispute.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 23rd November.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm or deny the reports which have been printed in "The Times," and which have come from Reuters' correspondent in Rome, that secret assurances have been given by Her Majesty's Government to the Italian Government in Rome which have led to a change in the attitude of the Italian Government? Can the Minister say whether such assurances have been given and if so what the assurances were?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman must be content with the answer which I gave to his Question. I am certain that it is much better, on the whole, for people to keep quiet about this matter. [Hon. Members: "Oh."]

Mr. Foot: Can the Minister at least give this assurance, that exactly the same information has been made available to the Yugoslav Government as has been made available to the Italian Government? [Hon. Members: "Answer."]

Mr. Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the answer which I have already given.

Mr. Foot: Does that mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in fact confirming what was stated quite openly by the diplomatic correspondent of "The Times" and by the correspondent in Rome?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister of State consider again the grave blunders which led to the troubles in Trieste? Did he consider the most important point put to him by my hon. Friend just now? Will he further consider that while time is needed to heal the effects of what the Government did on 8th October, nevertheless there is a danger in allowing this state of affairs to go on for too long without a conference?

Mr. Lloyd: As the right hon. Gentleman well knows the situation on 8th October was steadily deteriorating. I think that it is too early yet to decide exactly how events have worked out since 8th October; but it is an exceedingly delicate situation. Negotiations are in progress with a number of Governments on the matter and I think that it is better that Her Majesty's Government should not be pressed for answers on these questions now.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN DEFENCE COMMUNITY (BRITISH ASSOCIATION)

Mr. Foot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when this House will be informed of the fresh commitments on the European Continent undertaken by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply on 30th November.

Mr. Foot: If, referring to the earlier reply, new commitments have not yet been made, is not it the case that both in the Belgian Parliament and the French Parliament arguments have been used suggesting that the British Government have entered, or are willing to enter, into new agreements? Why should these matters be discussed in those Parliaments and no report be made to the House of Commons?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend dealt with that matter in his answer on 30th November. So far as the references in the Belgian Parliament are concerned, M. van Zeeland did refer to "tendencies" and at the moment, as has been said, negotiations are proceeding. The Government propose to act in accordance with precedent with regard to such negotiations and to conclude them before announcing them to this House.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say categorically whether the United Kingdom Government have entered into any fresh commitments in relation to the creation of the European Defence Community. Is not it desirable that the House should know about these commitments?

Mr. Lloyd: The answer is that negotiations are still proceeding. When they are concluded the results will be announced.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but before an announcement is made to the House, on which the House can have a debate if it wishes, is not it desirable for us to know whether we are being committed in respect of our Forces on the Continent further than existing commitments?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman will be told what commitments have been made when negotiations have been concluded. Any negotiation obviously involves a degree of commitment on both sides.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Slaughter of Horses

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement as to the Government's intention with regard to the recommendations given by the committee on the slaughter of horses.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 25th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Sir J. Crowder).

Sir I. Fraser: I have not access to that reply at the moment. Did it indicate any progress?

Major Lloyd George: For my hon. Friend's information, I will quote it briefly. I said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I were indebted to the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) for bringing forward the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Bill to implement the recommendations of the committee, and that the Government intended to support and facilitate its passage through Parliament.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to prevent the bleeding of horses, by means of an electric pump, in slaughterhouses.

Major Lloyd George: The use of an electric pump is prohibited by the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, unless the animal is first rendered insensible to pain. Both that Act and the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, apply to horses.

Mr. Henderson: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to a recent issue of the "Daily Mirror" reporting a B.B.C. broadcast entitled "Horses Can't Talk," which described this revolting practice in operations taking place in a slaughterhouse not very far from here; and could the Minister say whether it is possible to take any steps to check up on this kind of statement and allegation?

Major Lloyd George: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there is a Private Member's Bill, which has the Government's support, to implement most of the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee. I think that, perhaps, we had better wait until that Bill comes forward. On the specific point raised, I do not think I can do better than quote from this Report itself, which say's:
We have made the most diligent inquiries both in the Committee and of individuals, but have found no evidence of the use of an electric pump.

Mr. Henderson: Would not the Minister make inquiries through his Department of the B.B.C. as to what basis they have for making these statements?

Major Lloyd George: I will certanily do that.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is not the Minister aware of the public uneasiness which has been caused, and cannot he make some statement to allay that uneasiness, either by saying that he is quite satisfied that the practice does not exist, or that he will make diligent inquiries to see that it is stopped?

Major Lloyd George: I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that it was because of public anxiety that the Northumberland Committee was set up. As soon as the Report of the Committee was received, it was accepted with two very minor modifications, by the Government, and, thanks to the co-operation of the hon. Member for Old bury and Hales Owen (Mr. Moyle) and his hon. Friends, we shall be able to get a Bill through Parliament early next year.

Dr. Summer skill: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how these horses are rendered insensible to pain?

Major Lloyd George: In the ordinary slaughtering practice, horses and other animals are stunned first, and that, in fact,

is the law. What we are trying to stop are cases in which stunning does not take place first.

Bread

Mr. D. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Food if he will take steps to make it compulsory by statute for all bread to bear the distinctive mark of the manufacturer.

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister look at this matter again? I am satisfied that only a trivial cost would be involved. Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that when people purchase their bread from two or three different sources, it is impossible to trace any contamination?

Major Lloyd George: The investigations which I have made lead me to the conclusion that it would not be very difficult to trace the source of the bread. Of course, I am quite prepared to look at the matter, but I remind the hon. Member that the practical difficulties of doing what he suggests would be quite considerable.

Fat Stock Auctions

Mr. Peart: asked the Minister of Food (1) when he will be in a position to announce his proposals to counteract buying rings in auction market transactions;

(2) what action his Department proposes to take in cases of rigged markets as a consequence of the selling of fat stock on the free market.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) on 26th November, to which I am not yet able to add.

Mr. Peart: Is the Minister aware that the proposals of the Government to return the marketing of fat stock to private auctions is bitterly resented, and that if the scheme is carried out there will be a return to the old practice of rigged markets, with dealers coming in? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give a firm statement that he will do something? After all, the Minister of Agriculture promised to do something.

Major Lloyd George: I recommend the hon. Member to read the White Paper, in which he will find that not only have we done something, but that in regard to the very question to which he refers, discussions are now taking place with all the interests concerned.

Mr. Baldwin: If the auction markets were such sinks of iniquity before the war, can my right hon. and gallant Friend say why farmers did not support the grade and dead-weight system which was in existence for some seven years in various parts of Britain?

Mr. Peart: Is the Minister aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture condemned these private auctions in his own pamphlet?

Slaughterhouses

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Food how many additional slaughterhouses will, according to his present estimate, be required, following the derationing of meat in 1954; and what arrangements are being made to provide them.

Major Lloyd George: I am discussing this matter with the trades and organisations concerned. In the meantime, I would prefer to make no estimate.

Mr. Peyton: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that this is becoming a matter of increasing urgency and is arousing considerable anxiety in the country? Will he do his best at the earliest possible moment to make clear the expectations of the Government on this matter?

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend probably remembers that some months ago I appointed an inter-Departmental Committee to look into this matter very carefully. He will appreciate that this is a very big matter and affects many parts of the country. It cannot be settled quickly, but I hope shortly to get the Report.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food what steps are being taken to make available sufficient slaughterhouse capacity to enable a start to be made next summer with the grade and deadweight system of marketing fat stock as desired by the National Farmers' Union.

Major Lloyd George: A producers' marketing board set up to undertake on a voluntary basis the slaughter of fatstock and the sale of meat by grade and deadweight would be responsible for securing the necessary facilities by arrangement with public and private owners of slaughterhouses. Such a marketing scheme could also provide for slaughterhouses to be built or acquired for the Board's exclusive use, subject, of course, to the law governing the matter.

Mr. Hurd: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend recognise that at least 20 modern slaughterhouses will be needed up and down the country by next summer to give this grade and deadweight scheme a fair start? Will he earmark some, if not all, of the new Government slaughterhouses for this purpose?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot agree to earmarking, because, as my hon. Friend probably knows, the slaughterhouses owned by the Government have already been offered to local authorities. But certainly I shall do everything I can to assist in any way, and perhaps we will be in a better position after we received the Report of the inter-Departmental Committee.

Meat

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the poor quality old cow beef which butchers are expected to accept as part of their meat allocation; and what action he will take.

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. All meat allocated to retail butchers for ration purposes is of a quality suitable for the ration, and if any trader does not think so, he may appeal to a special grading panel.

Mr. Dodds: Does the Minister really say that he is not aware of the widespread dissatisfaction about the large quantity of this meat? In view of the unpleasant experience with ewe mutton, is it not about time that there was a better quality of meat?

Major Lloyd George: I am well aware that there is widespread satisfaction at the better quality of meat this year than there was when the hon. Member's party were in office. With regard to the instance which, I think, the hon. Member has in mind, the meat has now been accepted by the butchers without reservation.

Mr. H. Morrison: If the Minister says that the quality of the meat ration varies according to the district, is he in a position to give particulars as between Dart-ford and Epping? [Hon. Members: "Woodford."]

Mr. Nabarro: Wrong again.

Major Lloyd George: I did not make that observation. What I said was that any meat which a butcher dislikes can be regraded on appeal. That has happened in many cases.

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food what he estimates will be the consumption of home-produced car case meat and offal during 1953.

Major Lloyd George: About 1,100,000 tons.

Grain Drier, Rugby (Smoke Nuisance)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the smoke nuisance caused to the people of Rugby by his Department's grain drier in Law-ford Road; and what action he is taking in this matter.

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. Re-Commissioned Mills, Limited, who manage this drier, are in consultation with Ministry of Works engineers about the matter.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware—I hope he is—that a constant volume of black smoke is being poured out of this establishment, to the annoyance of all the housewives in the locality, who will be delighted that he is taking the steps that he says he will take?

Major Lloyd George: I am sure the hon. Member appreciates from what he knows that this is an extraordinarily stubborn question. Many remedies have been tried, but not one has succeeded. Only in the last three or four days an engineer of the Ministry of Works has been investigating the matter in Rugby.

Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that 99 per cent. of this nuisance can be eliminated by mechanical stoking, as has been done by the borough council with their public baths?

Milk

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Food if he will make arrangements to supply a reasonable quantity of milk to old age pensioners free of cost.

Major Lloyd George: I am afraid that we could not add to the groups receiving cheap or free milk.

Mr. Morley: Is the Minister aware that the old age pensioners in my constituency tell me that they cannot afford to buy coal and milk, and since his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power has refused to help them in regard to coal, why cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be kind-hearted enough to do something in regard to milk?

Major Lloyd George: In the first place, I entirely disagree with the hon. Member's opening remarks, which certainly are not in accordance with the facts throughout the country. In reply to the second part of the question, to give even a pint of free milk a day would cost between £34 and £35 million per annum.

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food why, under subhead H of the original Estimate, he showed for milk, including milk welfare schemes, an expenditure of £81,000,000, whereas in his revised Estimate he now shows an expenditure of £75,800,000.

Major Lloyd George: The reduction is due to the fact that the average realisation prices for milk assumed for the purposes of the revised Estimate differ from those assumed for the purposes of the original Estimate.

Mr. Willey: Is not one of the factors the fact that the seasonal prices for milk over the year amount, in fact, to rather more than what they were in the previous year?

Major Lloyd George: There was a seasonal variation, particularly in the short period August to October.

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food why, under subhead H of the original Estimate, he showed for milk products an expenditure of £26,500,000, whereas in his revised Estimate he now shows an expenditure of £21,700,000.

Major Lloyd George: This reduction in estimated expenditure is due partly to lower procurement costs than were originally allowed for and partly to increased selling prices.

Caponised Cockerels

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that scientific investigation in the United States of America has established that the waste products and offals of poultry which have been subjected to modern chemical methods of caponising should not be fed to any class of livestock including pigs, he can state on What precise grounds his own scientific advisers have reached the conclusion that human beings can safely consume such materials; and whether he will issue a detailed report from his advisers on this subject with the object of allaying public alarm.

Major Lloyd George: I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's view of the results of scientific investigation in the United States. There are no grounds for concern in this matter, and I do not think it necessary to issue any report.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: If the injected pellet affects all the parts of the cockerel, why should it not affect the flesh? How can a housewife tell whether a cockerel has been caponised, how long it has been caponised and what precautions it is absolutely necessary for her to take, and who tells her what the precautions are?

Major Lloyd George: I am sorry that I cannot answer all those questions. I am not a scientific man but, from the inquiries I have made, I am told that the eating of the offal of a treated cockerel would have no detectable effect on human beings. If my hon. and gallant Friend would care to do so, I should be very glad for him to come and have a talk with my scientific advisers.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend read the advisory leaflet issued by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, which describes in detail what happens to these cockerels when they are

caponised? Is he aware that if the carcass or the neck are boiled down into concentrated soups, the wretched public might caponise themselves?

Major Lloyd George: All I can say is that it never occurred to me.

Mr. McGovern: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

British-grown Barley

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food what proportion of his Department's purchases of this year's harvest of British-grown barley has been sold commercially.

Major Lloyd George: None, so far; but sales of the home crop are due to begin this month, in accordance with a programme already notified to the trade.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister make it clear that, because of the vastly increased dollar imports of Canadian barley—16 times as much as last year—and he ought to prepare the public for the shock when it is known—that we shall have to sell 1 million tons of British barley at £2 or £3 per ton less than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is paying for it; and will he at least advise the public of the danger into which he is leading the taxpayer as a result of this very strange policy?

Major Lloyd George: I am surprised to hear that from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but, in any case, the public will be well aware of the fact that, under the Agriculture Act guarantee, such things might happen.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Minister satisfied that he will, in fact, be able to dispose of all the British-grown barley this year?

Major Lloyd George: This calendar year, no; but we certainly shall be able to do it next year, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. I am not accepting the figures of stocks which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave, but it was essential, when we went into de-control, to make certain that there were adequate supplies in the country.

Bacon

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Food to state the comparative figures for bacon consumption during the last 12 months compared with corresponding periods in 1951 and 1950; the percentage increase this last 12 months compared with the earlier periods; and by how much this increased consumption raises the bacon subsidy liability in a full year.

Major Lloyd George: 546,000 tons of bacon were sold for domestic and catering use in the 12 months ended October, 1953. 395,000 tons and 447,000 tons were sold in the comparable periods in 1951 and 1950. The sales in the 1953 period were 38 per cent. greater than in 1951 and 22 per cent. greater than in 1950. Owing to changes in both procurement and selling prices during these years, the amount of the bacon subsidy has fallen from about £44 million in the financial year 1951–52 to an estimated £14 million in the current financial year.

Mr. Nabarro: Are not these thoroughly satisfactory figures? Do they not reveal the fact that, notwithstanding the big increase in bacon consumption, the cost of the subsidy to the taxpayer has already been cut by no less than 70 per cent.?

Eggs

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Food how egg consumption for the eight months since de-rationing compares with the corresponding periods of 1951 and 1950; whether de-rationing has caused more or less eggs to go through the packing stations; and how the general pattern of egg distribution in present circumstances compares with the pattern under rationing arrangements prior to 26th March, 1953, when large numbers of home-produced eggs were diverted from packing station channels.

Major Lloyd George: The estimated total egg consumption for the eight months since de-rationing is about 12 per cent. lower than the total consumption for the corresponding period for 1950, but slightly higher than in 1951, and noticeably higher than in 1952. The number of eggs passing through the packing stations shows a slight increase over the corresponding period last year. Since de-rationing, the general pattern of distribution has changed to bring more eggs through

packing station channels into the shops in urban areas, whilst country-dwellers are more dependent on supplies bought direct from producers.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not the real effect of the policy of my right hon. and gallant Friend that he has now beaten the black market and brought into the shops bigger supplies of eggs, and, what is most important of all, fresher supplies of eggs?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not a fact that another result of that policy has been that we require another £5 million to cover the changed circumstances caused by the present system of egg distribution?

Major Lloyd George: That is perfectly true, but, of course, if eggs had gone up to 10d., as the hon. and gallant Member suggested, we should not want any money at all.

Mr. G. Jeger: Is it not a fact that the Minister's policy is to legalise the black market—[Hon. Members: "No."]—and to make it possible for those with no conscience and plenty of money to buy all the supplies they wish at the expense of those in poorer circumstances?

Major Lloyd George: That is not in the least in accordance with the facts, and the hon. Gentleman knows it perfectly well.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Social Welfare

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what funds are made available by the Government of Nyasaland for social welfare and development, including mass education; whether a separate department exists for such purposes; and what progress is being made.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): There is no separate department for social welfare in Nyasaland. Social welfare work, in which both official and voluntary social workers take part, is carried out by the Provincial and District Administration and Government Departments. It is not possible to isolate a figure of total expenditure in this field. In spite of financial limitations, quite good progress has been made in the last few years, but the Nyasaland Government is well aware that much remains to be done, both in rural and urban areas.

Mr. Hynd: Can the Secretary of State tell the House why there is no special department in Nyasaland for this purpose, when I gather that a similar department exists in other African Colonies? Has such a department been considered, and can the right hon. Gentleman promise to give us some information as to actual work that has been done, particularly in regard to mass education?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am quite prepared to see what I can do to give further information about that. The reason why a department of social welfare has not been set up is that the finances are very limited, and the expenditure incidental to the establishment of a new department would use up money which we think would be better used for direct work.

Undeveloped Land

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much land in Nyasaland alienated to Europeans is undeveloped; and what the Government's plans are in connection with such undeveloped land.

Mr. Lyttelton: About 4 per cent. of the land area of Nyasaland (887,000 acres) remains in private ownership. Of this, 787,000 acres are undeveloped apart from African occupation; but this figure includes about 200,000 acres under natural forest or unsuitable for economic development and land held by missions and small estates. The Nyasaland Government have already acquired some 300,000 acres of undeveloped land held in freehold. I am considering with the Governor what further steps might be taken to ensure the best use of the Protectorate's land resources.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that the recent disturbances in Nyasaland took place in an area in which there has been serious discontent over the existence of large parts of alienated land which has not been cultivated but which is limited to European cultivation?

Mr. Lyttelton: I would not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about that, but the problem, which has been under frequent review by successive Governments, is a difficult one, and this purchase of 300,000 acres is a practical step which we have been able to take and which we expect to extend.

Oral Answers to Questions — FALKLAND ISLAND DEPENDENCIES

Captain Ryder: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to protect British Sovereignty in the Falkland Island Dependencies; and to prevent a recurrence of foreign trespassing.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Falkland Islands Dependencies Survey, to which Her Majesty's Government contributes up to £100,000 annually, maintains six bases for scientific and meteorological work in the Antarctic Dependencies: and also the Royal Research ship "John Biscoe." which serves these bases. One of H.M. frigates is normally in the area during the Antarctic summer season. Her Majesty's Government have on numerous occasions in the past protested to the Argentine and Chilean Governments against unauthorised trespass on British territory in the Falkland Islands Dependencies, and have offered to refer matters in dispute to the International Court of Justice. I cannot anticipate any action it may be necessary to take if there are fresh encroachments on this British territory during the Antarctic summer season which is now opening.

Captain Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend take note that the Argentine Government have announced their intention of establishing a base, manned by their own air force, on Dundee Island?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am watching all these matters very carefuly, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has not the right hon. Gentleman enough trouble in other parts of the world without starting any more in the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Lyttelton: It will not be started by us but by other people, either in the Falkland Islands or in any other part of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAGOS TOWN COUNCIL (REPORT)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Onitsha Town Council has now been dissolved; and whether any legal action has yet been taken following the Storey Report of the corruption of the Lagos Town Council.

Mr. Lyttelton: The answer to the first question is "Yes," and to the second that one person has been charged with obtaining money by false pretences and convicted. An appeal has been lodged.

Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his action played a large part in the recent Lagos Election, to the discomfiture of Dr. Azikiwe's Party, and that for once the right hon. Gentleman has the support of hon. Members on this side of the House in clearing up the more unsavoury aspects of the Nigerian political scene?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am under the impression that I have the support of a large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite in trying to clear up the general Nigerian position.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Closer Association

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what policy Her Majesty's Government has for closer association with the United Kingdom for those Colonial Dependencies which may never achieve a viable independence and which are known as grant-aided territories.

Mr. Lyttelton: These territories all have their own characteristics and problems, and no single device would suit them all. Consequently there can be no general policy. New forms of association and devolution will no doubt be worked out as time goes on.

Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many parts of the Commonwealth and Empire with large coloured populations now attaining political consciousness, for example, like Gambia, and can he say whether he is admitting members to this Chamber or members on their behalf to the other place, or is he perhaps thinking of establishing something on the lines of the Isle of Man?

Mr. Lyttelton: I hardly think that such a subject can be usefully discussed by Question and answer. These problems differ in almost every one of these Territories. The hon. Gentleman will have to take Parliamentary opportunity to raise the matter on another occasion.

Governors (Powers of Deportation)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what powers of deportation are permitted to governors in each of the British Colonies and under what authority.

Mr. Lyttelton: Colonial Governments must retain the normal right of all Administrations to deport aliens at their discretion. As regards British subjects or British protected persons, powers are conferred on all colonial administrations by a variety of legislation totalling in all some 150 ordinances or other enactments. In the majority of cases a person regarded as belonging to the territory cannot be deported. The whole question of this legislation, and in particular the retention in some cases of the power to deport British subjects or British protected persons without prior judicial inquiry, is under review, with the object of providing that such judicial process should normally be obligatory before deportation.

Mr. Brockway: While welcoming the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, might I ask him whether he has now had replies from the Governors of all the Colonies to the questions which were put to them on this matter immediately the right hon. Gentleman came into office?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have had replies—I think I am right in saying this, although I speak from memory—from all the Governors on this matter, but I have had to make further inquiries as the result of those replies.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

Appointment of Constitutional Commission

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Commission which is to visit British Guiana is expected to begin its work.

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the composition and terms of reference of the Commission which is to go to British Guiana.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will announce the composition and terms of reference of the Commission to be sent to British Guiana.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Constitutional Commission for British Guiana will consist of:
Sir James Robertson, K.C.M.G., K.B.E., late Civil Secretary of the Sudan, as Chairman, and
Sir Donald Jackson, Chief Justice of the Windward and Leeward Islands, and
Mr. George Woodcock, Assistant General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress as members. The terms of reference of the Commission will be:
In the light of the circumstances which made it necessary to suspend the Constitution of British Guiana to consider and to recommend what changes are required in it.
I hope that the Commission will be able to begin its work in British Guiana early in January.

Mrs. White: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the people in British Guiana who are under detention without charge, or who are charged with legal offences, shall be free to give evidence to the Commission if they so wish?

Mr. Lyttelton: In so far as it applies to their terms of reference, that is, of course, so.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It is difficult to follow these terms of reference. Will they leave the matter in this way, that if the Commission, having inquired into all the circumstances, come to the conclusion that no basic, fundamental change is required in the Constitution, it will be at liberty to so report?

Mr. Lyttelton: The Commission is asked to recommend what changes are required. If it finds that no changes are required, I imagine that it will say so.

Mineral Concessions

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what concessions for oil and mineral exploration and development now operative in British Guiana were granted to foreign agencies during the period of office of the People's Progressive Party's Government; and on what dates these concessions were granted.

Mr. Lyttelton: No concessions were granted. One exclusive permission to

explore for gold and precious stones was granted on 16th July, and two for bauxite on 5th and 12th June.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA ("CONGRESS NEWS")

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds action has been taken against the publisher of "Congress News," the organ of the African National Congress in Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Lyttelton: The publishers of the "Congress News" failed to register in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Printed Publications Ordinance, but no action has been taken against them, as the authorities were satisfied that failure to register was due to a bona fide mistake.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Screening Teams

Mr. M. MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken by the Kenya Government, following upon the recent trial and sentencing in Tanganyika of a Kenya screening team led by a boy of 19 years of age.

Mr. Lyttelton: Standing instructions have been repeated, requiring strict supervision of screening operations and care in selecting officers in charge of screening teams. I have called for a full report from both Governments.

Mr. MacPherson: Is it not true that repetition is not good enough in a case like this? Is it not clear, although the sentences are light, that in the case of one of the victims who died in consequence of this episode, it might well be held that the action of the team resulted in his murder? Is it not also true that if the ultimate justification of our being in Africa is—as it is—to hope that we can lead the Africans to a better level of understanding of living, then the entrusting of a task of this sort to a 19-year-old boy is evidence of casualness quite out of keeping with a sense of such responsibility?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have said already that not only have these standing instructions


been repeated, but I have called for a report from both Governments. This episode is particularly regrettable, but I could not accept the general censure on boys of 19. Many of us owe the fact that we are here to their efforts in the last war.

Financial Aid (Educational Facilities)

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of the proposed financial aid to the Government of Kenya will be available for improving educational facilities for Africans.

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot yet make a statement about financial aid to Kenya, but hope to do so shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (PREFABRICATED BUILDINGS)

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken to rehouse the people of Cyprus who lost their homes as a result of the recent earthquake.

Mr. Lyttelton: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) on 29th October. Basic components for over 60 prefabricated houses are now being produced daily, and the work of surveying damage and assessing assistance required for repairs has gone forward rapidly.

Mr. Rogers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread public dissatisfaction in Paphos and impatience with the alleged tardiness of the Government in regard to this matter, that people are still living in tents in the market square, and that the Government recently forbade a demonstration by the people of Paphos? Will he do what he can to hasten repairs?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not at all surprised that the people are impatient, but I do not think their impatience is justified. My latest report, dated 6th November, is that by that time 8,000 buildings had been surveyed, the assistance required had been assessed in more than 6,300 cases, and 620 prefabricated dwellings had been authorised.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Braine: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been sent to the Prime Minister of Malta's proposal to Her Majesty's Government that responsibility for matters relating to Malta should be transferred from the Colonial Office to the Commonwealth Relations Office.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Lyttelton: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer Question No. 62.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds to give the answer, may I ask him a question on this matter? As he knows, an election is to take place in Malta next week, and in view of that fact does he propose to make a statement in the middle of the election? I raise the point so as to avoid any misunderstanding.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am rather glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the point, because the Government and I are in a dilemma on this point. The offer, which forms the substance of my reply to this Question, was made to the Maltese Government on 16th September, and it was not until 9th October that the Coalition Government was defeated on a technical motion during the Budget debate. When that happened, I felt some considerable doubt as to whether we could remain silent upon the offer which had been made in view of the approaching General Election. I took the view that we must make this offer public before the election takes place as otherwise we might be accused of suppressing something which was bound to affect one way or another—and I do not know which—the issue of that election.
I now come to the answer, which is as follows: 
Yes, Sir. The Maltese Prime Minister has been told that his proposal has been very carefully considered but that Her Majesty's Government are unable to accept it. He was also informed, however, that Her Majesty's Government recognise the unique position of Malta as a fortress in Europe, its long history


of civilisation and its service in peace and war, recently distinguished by the exceptional award of the George Cross; and that, Her Majesty's Government would therefore be prepared to agree in principle to the transfer of responsibility for handling business relating to Malta to the Home Secretary, who is the Secretary of State immediately concerned as The Queen's Minister in relation to the United Kingdom and neighbouring islands.
This proposal was conveyed to the Maltese Government on 19th September. The Coalition Government was defeated in the Assembly on 9th October. In the circumstances, the Maltese Government have found themselves unable to give a firm reply to the proposal, though the first reaction of the Nationalist Minister now in office pending the general election has not been favourable.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware, in view of the high esteem and affection with which Malta is regarded in this country, that his answer will cause widespread interest? Can he say whether this very interesting proposal envisages the representation of Malta in the Imperial Parliament?

Mr. Lyttelton: The answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's Question is "No, Sir."

Mr. Griffiths: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, will the transfer of responsibility for Malta from the Colonial Office to the Home Office require legislation? Secondly, does it mean that the constitutional position of Malta is unaffected by the change of the Department responsible?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait for an answer to both those questions until I receive a reply. I certainly think it would require legislation if implemented in one way, but not if implemented in another. If the right hon. Gentleman will wait a little longer I shall be able to satisfy him on that point.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a White Paper indicating the exact relationship that will exist between Malta and this country if this proposal fructifies, because, of course, the Home Office relationships with Northern

Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which I think are the analogies on which the right hon. Gentleman is relying, are in each case different from all the others?

Mr. Lyttelton: If it would assist the House, and if the proposals are accepted, I should be only too glad to issue a White Paper. Perhaps we would do that in any case, but, if I may, I will have a talk with the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject.

Mr. Amory: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this very generous offer will cause great satisfaction to the many friends of Malta in this country and in other parts of the Commonwealth?

AIR POLLUTION (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS)

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a short statement about air pollution.
The Interim Report of the Committee on Air Pollution is being published today. I will, with permission, circulate in the Official Report a somewhat detailed statement regarding the action which the Government have taken or propose to take in this matter.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am sure the House will agree that this is a very important matter on which there is widespread public interest. I appreciate that the statement which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to circulate is somewhat long, but it is not very satisfactory that on a matter of this importance he should not inform the House what the Government propose to do in relation to something which is causing a great deal of public anxiety. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could give us that information today, or perhaps on some other occasion?

Mr. Macmillan: I thought it would be easier for everybody, first, to have the Report itself, and then to have a longer statement than I should like to inflict upon the House today when it is waiting for two other debates, and then, in the light of a debate, or whatever procedure would be best, to elucidate the matter.


I thought that would be more convenient to the House than firing at it a long statement which it is very difficult at the moment for hon. Members to take in. I have only done that because I thought it was the best way for everybody.
Following is the statement:
The Interim Report of the Committee on Air Pollution is being published today, and the Government have given it careful consideration. As the Committee points out, the problem of air pollution, and of smoke in particular, has been the subject of study and research over a long period.
Among the measures taken in recent years to reduce smoke, are the development of domestic heating appliances, including improved types of open fires, which will burn smokeless fuel efficiently and well. These appliances have been installed in all local authority houses built since 1948. For this winter, the domestic allocation of coke has been increased from 1½ to 2 tons. The Ministry of Fuel and Power provide a fuel efficiency advisory service to industry, as well as special loan facilities to industry for the installation of fuel saving equipment. Statutory powers to establish "smokeless zones" have been conferred on a number of local authorities.
As the Committee emphasise, it must be accepted that the complete cure of pollution, if indeed it ever be attainable, is bound to take many years. The Committee are now embarking on a detailed examination of the many practical difficulties involved in further measures. The "smog" which covered Greater London for five days, 5th to 9th December, 1952, was of exceptional density and duration. Nevertheless, similar conditions may recur in London or in other towns. The Committee have considered what precautions might be taken to avoid during the coming winters the worst effects of "smog." On 17thNovember, before the report was submitted, doctors were authorised to prescribe masks under the National Health Service for patients suffering from heart or lung disease living or working in an area where smoke-polluted fog is likely to occur.
Following the Committee's recommendations, the Government have already arranged for the Meteorological Office to issue through the usual channels warnings when serious fog is expected to prevail for at least 24 hours in areas of normally high pollution. These fog warnings will be accompanied by advice to the public about the ways in which they can help to reduce smog and its ill effects.
The Committee's report stresses the fact that the largest single producer of smoke is the domestic consumer. Everyone therefore has both a duty and an opportunity to help. Householders in large towns who are dependent on solid fuel and who normally burn coal should, wherever possible, lay in a stock

of, say, one hundredweight of coke or other smokeless fuel for use in periods of persistent fog. Even a mixture of coke and coal will greatly reduce smoke. Stocks of coke at gas works are high and supplies are readily available for the reserve hundredweight to be kept in readiness by those who normally burn coal. Those already burningcoke will benefit from the increase of half-a-ton in the coke allocation (from 1½ to 2 tons) recently announced.
When persistent fog is forecast:
(1) Coal fires should not be banked up at night.
(2) Those who can use smokeless fuels should confine themselves to those fuels during periods of fog.
(3) Rubbish should not be burnt nor bonfires lit while the fog lasts.
(4) Elderly people and those suffering from chronic heart or lung conditions might be helped by wearing a mask or scarf wrapped round the mouth and nose if they have to go out in the fog.
(5) The general public should refrain from bringing motor vehicles into densely-populated areas.
Smoke-control measures in industry, shops, offices and hotels, etc., should be brought up to peak efficiency at once and checked at frequent intervals throughout the winter. Special efforts should be made to prevent smoke when stoking. Much of the smoke from factory furnaces can be prevented and it is the responsibility of managements, particularly in times of fog, to see that smoke is kept to the minimum. Managers of industrial plants, hospitals, offices and other establishments should keep a special check to ensure that dark smoke is not emitted from their chimneys either by day or night and particularly in the early morning. This check can best be made by the installation of a simple smoke-density indicator. The report contains drawings of simple devices which can be made up cheaply by most small works. Copies of these drawings can be obtained from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and from the Department of Health for Scotland. The fuel engineers of the Ministry of Fuel and Power are working in co-operation with the inspectors of the local authorities in a special drive to bring home to managements the importance of fuel efficiency in the interests of smoke abatement. Full use should be made of these services by any business in doubt as to its proper course.
All these measures together, if conscientiously carried through, will help to alleviate and reduce the injury which might be done by another series of "smogs" this winter. The Government are studying further steps which might be taken to ensure application of these measures and make them more effective, while awaiting the next report of the Beaver Committee.

KABAKA OF BUGANDA (DEPOSITION)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I rise to ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The decision of Her Majesty's Government to depose the Kabaka of Buganda and to require him to leave its territory.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks me for permission to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "The decision of Her Majesty's Government to depose the Kabaka of Buganda and to require him to leave its territory."

The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No, 9, until Seven o'Clock this evening.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crook shank.]

Ordered:
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'Clock.—[Mr. Crook shank.]

RIGHTS OF ENTRY (GAS AND ELECTRICITY BOARDS)

3.39 p.m.

Miss Irene Ward: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the exercise of statutory rights of entry by or on behalf of Gas Boards and Electricity Boards, and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid.
This Bill which I am seeking the permission of the House to introduce is on one very simple point. It seeks to regulate the exercise of statutory powers of entry by Gas and Electricity Boards. It provides that, except in cases of emergency, forcible entry shall only be exercised by the Boards after a warrant has been obtained from a justice of the peace, and signed, after sworn information has been given in writing.
Incidentally, this procedure was embodied in the Water Act, 1945, and if the Bill which I am introducing becomes law, the procedure set out in it will provide adequate safeguards both for the public and for the officials of the Boards themselves. I think it will be generally agreed that it is wise that no one should have powers of entry in excess of the powers already held by the police.
It may be within the recollection of the House that, in 1951, an official of the Eastern Gas Board made a forcible entry into a private house. The official first of all produced an authorisation document from the Eastern Gas Board to a neighbour of the owner of the house into which he intended to make the forcible entry. That, in itself, I think the House will agree, is not a very satisfactory way of proceeding. The premises were unoccupied, and when, in due course, the owner of the property returned, he took proceedings against the Eastern Gas Board, claiming that their officer had illegally entered his property.
He lost the case in the court of summary jurisdiction and again lost when he proceeded to appeal. Subsequently, the North Thames Gas Consultative Council considered the implications of the legal actions against the Eastern Gas Board, and decided to make a recommendation to the Minister of Fuel and Power that the Gas Act—and it follows, of course, the Electricity Act—of 1948, should be amended in the way outlined


in the Bill which I am now seeking permission to introduce, and which I commend to the House. The recommendation of the North Thames Gas Consultative Council to the Minister has received, I understand, favourable consideration.
I always like to pay tribute to anyone who stimulates me to take action, and I should like to say that I took an interest in the recommendation of the North Thames Gas Consultative Council because the "Star" wrote a very interesting leader on this whole question. A very considerable consumers' machinery having been set up, I feel that when a consumers' council makes a practical suggestion to a Minister, it is in the interests of the public that practical recommendations should receive legislative action. I therefore followed up the recommendation of the North Thomas Gas Consultative Council, and had my Bill drafted.
I hope that the Minister of Fuel and Power feels that it is an acceptable Bill. I have also consulted the Opposition, and, although I always think that it is very unwise ever to prophesy about anything in political life, I am hoping that, as the Bill is practical, I shall be permitted by the House to introduce it today.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Ward, Sir Fergus Graham, Viscount Lambton, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Speir and Mr. P. Williams.

RIGHTS OF ENTRY (GAS AND ELECTRICITY BOARDS) BILL

"to regulate the exercise of statutory rights of entry by or on behalf of Gas Boards and Electricity Boards, and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1953–54

CLASS VIII

VOTE 9 (MINISTRY OF FOOD)

3.46 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): I beg to move,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £126,843,450, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies; a grant in aid; and sundry other services, including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.
A Supplementary Estimate for this sum has been presented under Class VIII, Vote 9, Civil Estimates, the Vote for the Ministry of Food. As the Committee will see, it is a very considerable sum both in itself and in relation to the original Estimate, and I feel certain that it is the desire of the Committee that I should give some explanation of the way in which this Supplementary Estimate arises.
The Supplementary Estimate of £126·8 million is made up by increased subsidies, £68 million, increased stocks, £52 million, and nearly £7 million for variation in debtors and creditors. The Ministry's original Estimate for 1953–54 under Class VIII, Vote 9, was for £109·6 million, and the Supplementary Estimate now presented is, as I have said, for £126·8 million, bringing the total cash requirements of the Ministry, fox 1953–54, to £236·5 million. Apart from relatively small items such as flood relief in Subhead K, the increase arises substantially on subhead H, which finances the still considerable trading operations of this Ministry.
If the Committee will glance at the details of that subhead on page 3 of the Supplementary Estimate, the magnitude of these operations will at once become apparent. It will be seen that purchases, food storage and so forth now amount


to £1,614,600,000, and sales to practically £1,391,900, leaving a net excess of payments over receipts of £224,000,000, as against the £96 million excess originally estimated.
The explanation of this cash trading deficit is to be found lower down on the same page:
The above figures represent partly the difference between selling price of commodities and their cost to the Ministry, including expenditure on distribution and other incidental expenses, the deficiency being incurred in order to keep down the cost to the consumer of basic foodstuffs; and party payments in implementation of the guarantees given to farmers in accordance with Part I of the Agricultural Act, 1947.
This is the subhead which finances the bulk of the food subsidies of one kind and another.
The excess of payments over receipts is now estimated to be close on £128 million more than was originally estimated, which is a considerable sum. The Committee will, I am sure, appreciate that, in view of the very large sums of money involved in these operations, an error of 1 per cent. one way or the other in the figures throws the estimate of the excess of payments over receipts out by as much as £30 million.
I should like to make another general point on the difficulty of the estimating process. It may not be generally realised that the preparation of the original Estimate which we are now discussing was begun last November, over 12 months ago, and related to a year, the current financial year, then three or four months ahead. If conditions of world trade had remained stable, and if the organisation of the import and distribution of food had not varied throughout the year covered by the Estimate, it would still have been far from easy to forecast with any precision for a year, the end of which was then 16 months ahead, what would be the outcome of the large trading activities which my Department is still carrying on, the figure for which is over £1,600 million.
But the task was even more difficult than that. The year was to see such major changes of organisation as the decontrol of eggs, of feeding stuffs and cereals. A great change was to come over the world markets for grain. Meat and bacon were to become relatively

plentiful earlier than had been expected, with consequences to both cash and subsidy figures. In these conditions, it will, I think, be fully appreciated by the Committee that the formation of the Estimates presented unusual difficulty for this current financial year. One has only to look back over recent years to appreciate the difficulties of estimating procedure in a trading department. There has, in fact, been only one year, 1950–51, since the war, when the Ministry of Food has not had to present a Supplementary Estimate, and in that exceptional year there was an over-estimate of about £121 million.
I should like to examine some of these problems of estimation in greater detail. I will take as my first example the restoration of private trading in cereals and animal feeding stuffs, a large and very delicate operation which was successfully accomplished in the course of this year. The change-over from Government procurement to private buying had to be so planned as to avoid even the possibility of interruptions of supply, which would have threatened, on the one hand, the supply of bread itself, and, on the other hand, the agricultural expansion programme. We had, therefore, to provide for the holding of Government stocks at the moment of transition large enough to ensure the country against these risks.
I frankly admit that we provided for larger Government stocks than proved necessary. We expect now to be holding at the end of the year about £5 million worth of imported stocks which we had every reason to expect would have been sold by that time. In the event, we over-insured. But after 14 years of State trading there could be no certainty of conditions in a free market. Indeed, fears were expressed in this House that the transition might result in a shortage, and in this case, as in all others, where the Government have the responsibility of honouring a ration level right up to the point of decontrol, we could do no other than cover every possible eventuality. Moreover, of course, we shall realise these stocks next year.
Another cause of the increased expenditure giving rise to this Supplementary Estimate is the special purchase of one million tons of sugar from Cuba which, added to an increase of about half a million tons from Commonwealth


sources, made derationing possible. Twelve months ago none of us, I suggest, could have foreseen the favourable circumstances which made the Cuban purchase possible. We could not have foreseen—at least, we could not have been certain—that the balance of payments would so improve as to allow us to devote the necessary dollars to this purpose. The derationing of sugar was most welcome to the housewife, but we now have to finance it. The Cuban purchase and the increased Commonwealth arrivals account for £36 million of the Supplementary Estimate. Here again, the money from the sale of this sugar on the commercial market will come back to us.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House the cost in dollars of this Cuban sugar purchase?

Major Lloyd George: I think it is something like 62 or 63 million dollars. I think it is 62 million, but I will check the figure.
The abundant supplies of meat this summer, particularly of pork, have involved more in subsidy and, therefore, a larger cash expenditure. Hitherto, the emphasis has been mainly on pigs for bacon, the pork trade in effect getting what was left. The increase in pig production as a result of the Government's agricultural expansion programme has thrown up more and more pigs for pork, but until this year the price schedules did not directly encourage the production of pork pigs. The last Farm Price Review after the original Estimate was framed revised the price schedules in favour of better quality bacon pigs and lighter weight pigs for pork. The price of heavy weight pigs was reduced, and the result is that producers now market their pigs at an earlier age and, owing to the quicker turnover, the Ministry is receiving greatly increased numbers which fall into the higher price categories.
This increase of close on 2 million pigs for sale as pork, most of which fall within the high quality price ranges, has brought us over 110.000 tons of pork of improved quality. Much of this increased tonnage came forward in the summer months, when there is a certain element of consumer resistance, particularly in certain parts of the country, to pork. The price had to be adjusted to

meet this situation. These two factors combined have increased the estimated deficit on pigs for pork by £18 million. We also found that with the expansion of bacon production, coupled with the increased arrival of bacon from overseas, it became commercially necessary to reduce bacon prices, involving some £13 million on this Supplementary Estimate.
Another major source of this increased expenditure which the Committee is now invited to cover is the implementation of the guarantees on home-grown cereals under the 1947 Act. When the original Estimate was prepared, wheat and coarse grain prices were buoyant. It is always dangerous to speculate about the trend of grain prices, but at that time there was no justification for assuming that there would be any significant fall. We had to assume that world prices of wheat and coarse grains during the period for marketing the 1953 home-grown crops would be sufficiently high to ensure a ready market for those crops through normal trade channels, at or above the minimum prices guaranteed to growers at the 1952 Farm Price Review.
However, during the current year world prices of cereals steadily declined. The market value of the home crops harvested in 1953 was, therefore, below the guaranteed minimum prices to which the farmers were entitled in fulfilment of the Government's obligation under the Agriculture Act, 1947. So the Ministry is having to take delivery of substantial quantities of home-grown grain offered at the guaranteed minimum prices, and these will have to be disposed of at the ruling market price. It is now estimated that approximately £20 million will be required to meet the trading deficit on the resale of such purchases of home-grown grain.
Approximately another £20 million is also estimated to be required for increased stocks. These will consist mainly of home-grown grain purchased at guaranteed prices, which, on present estimates, will remain unsold at the end of the financial year. There will also be some Ministry stocks of imported grain which will remain for disposal at that date. The proceeds of such stocks will accrue to the Exchequer in the next financial year.
During the year the subsidy on bread and bread baking has been affected by the decontrol of cereals and flour in


August of this year. It has been found necessary, for instance, to provide some measure of relief to small bakers, and provision has had to be made for this in the Supplementary Estimate. There is also an item of £2·9 million, in the £7 million increase in the subsidy for bread and bread baking, which reflects the public's continued taste for the national subsidised loaf. After 14 years of control no reliable estimates were possible as to how the public would react on the re-introduction of a variety of different types of bread. As yet it is apparent that there has been no very significant change of demand.
Having said that, most of the balance of the £7 million to which I have just referred is due to the increase in baking costs, including wages, during the year. These have risen to a greater extent than was provided for in the original Estimate.
In passing, I can now give the hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) the information for which she asked in connection with the purchase of Cuban sugar. The cost was approximately 65 to 70 million dollars.
There appears in the Supplementary Estimate a subsidy on the production of home-produced eggs which was not originally expected. When the Estimate was first prepared it was thought likely that no net expenditure on the Exchequer would arise from the Ministry's activities in importing shell eggs and implementing the guarantees to the British producers, but the level of retail prices on the free market has at times been lower than the forecast. Thus, the cost of implementing the guarantee under the Agriculture Act, combined with reduced proceeds from the sale of imported eggs, accounts for the loss on home-produced shell eggs, which is new estimated at £3 million. The potato subsidy has risen by nearly £5 million.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Before my right hon. and gallant Friend leaves the subject of eggs, may I ask him if it is not the fact that, whereas there might have been an increased subsidy of £3 million in respect of shell eggs over and above the Estimate, that must largely arise from quite a substantial increase in the consumption of eggs?

Major Lloyd George: The real fact is that one bases one's estimate of what the subsidy will be on the average price of eggs. As it happens, in the event it has been lower. We could have avoided this altogether if we had had eggs at a very high price, but that is the reason the figure is higher than estimated. I am referring only to what was said on so many occasions in the Socialist Press and in the House—that the l0d. egg was on its way. Had the l0d. egg arrived, we should have had a very good profit now. The fact is that it is below the estimate we have made, which is all to the good. We thought that it would be slightly higher than it has turned out to be, and the result is that it has cost the Exchequer more.

Mr. George Brown: If one adds the two together, it comes to the same thing.

Major Lloyd George: I am sorry, but it does not.

Mr. Brown: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to make the point that the egg never reached a price of l0d. because some millions of pounds of that price are being borne by the Exchequer, will he tell us what this represents per egg? We can then add the two together and see how near we get to it.

Major Lloyd George: I can easily give the right hon. Gentleman the figures. If he had been here at Question time he might have heard them. I have not the time to do that division now. I am sure that the hon. Member will be able to do it some time this evening.
The potato subsidy has risen by nearly £5 million. The expenditure is largely governed by weather and yield, given our liability under the Agriculture Act. This year we have had a record potato crop. I believe that it is a record for all time. The yield is 7 per cent. higher than the average for the preceding five years, which were themselves remark able years. That accounts for the £5 million.
The balance of the increased cash requirements is accounted for by variations in debtors, creditors, etc., amounting to just under £7 million. As the transactions of the trading departments vary in this period of transition, so the amount owed to or by the undertaking


at the end of the financial year varies. It so happens that the effect of this is an increase in cash requirements of just under £7 million.
There have been some economies as well as increases in expenditure since the original Estimate was put forward, and savings include £1 million on staff. An appreciable proportion of the trading deficit for this year will not have to be incurred next year. The subsidy on sugar ran for a part of the year, until decontrol, but it will not have to be paid in the next financial year. The cash requirements next year will be similarly affected. The need for a Government trading stock of imported grain will vanish.
Stocks of raw sugar now held will be sold in the ordinary course. Home-grown cereal stocks from the 1953 harvest will be disposed of, and so will Ministry stocks of condensed milk and powder. The decontrol of butter, cheese, margarine, cooking fat and meat will give substantial relief to cash requirements as stocks are cleared or run down.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now dealing with the important subject of stocks. This is very early in the year to ask the Committee for a Supplementary Estimate. After all, this is only November. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance to the Committee that he will not ask for a Supplementary Estimate on Vote 10 during this financial year?

Major Lloyd George: I am just pointing to the position which accounts for this large sum. I have referred in some detail to stock of grain—the £20 million—

Mr. Willey: Evidently I did not make my point clear. I want the Minister to give an assurance to the Committee that it is not his intention to ask the Committee for a Supplementary Estimate on Vote 10.

Major Lloyd George: I should hate to give an assurance about anything in this world, but I should think it is very unlikely that I shall.
I was referring to the non-recurring cash requirements. The decontrol of the fats group, butter, cheese, margarine, and also the meat will give substantial relief

to the cash requirements as the stocks run down. There will be further economies, obviously, in the staff.
The Committee may like to have an explanation of another point. Whilst the original Estimate and the amount of this Supplementary Estimate total some £236 million, the total food subsidies, which are shown on page 6 of the Supplementary Estimate, amount to some £294 million. The Supplementary Estimate, like the original Estimate, is, of course, an estimate of cash requirements, that is, the money needed by the Department from the Exchequer within the financial year primarily, though not entirely, for trading purposes. Subsidised food bought within the year and remaining in stock at the end affects cash requirements, but it does not affect the subsidy figure because it has not been sold. On the other hand, subsidised food bought in the preceding year does not increase the cash requirements in the current year, but if sold in the year obviously affects the subsidy. I am sorry to be complicated, but that is the only way in which I can explain it. As long as it is in stock it does not affect the subsidy. If it is sold from stock it does affect the subsidy.
In a period, therefore, when the Ministry and its stocks are running down by comparison with previous years it would be normal for the subsidy figure to be higher than cash requirements. There are other reasons why this should be so. There are some items included in the subsidy calculations which do not affect the cash figure because they are notional, that is, not settled in cash. Examples are the inclusion of the notional interest on Exchequer advances to finance the operations of the Department, amounting this year, as it happens, to £11·6 million, and the services provided by other Departments without cash payment, for example, rent, stationery, telephone and postal services, which amount this year to £5·3 million.
Finally there are five subsidies, those for the attested herds scheme, fertilisers, white fish and calves, and the ploughing grants, which are included in the food subsidies although the payments under them are made by the agricultural Departments and shown on their Votes, swelling their cash requirements and not those of the Ministry of Food.
It would be improper in this debate on a Supplementary Estimate for cash requirements to get involved in a discussion on the future of consumer food subsidies. There is nothing in this Supplementary Estimate which can be construed as implying future changes in retail prices, whether upwards or down wards, and anything I said on that subject would be irrelevant to the question of Supply, which is the one before the Committee.
I should like to make it clear that this Estimate of the cash required by the Ministry to finance its operations is not and cannot of its nature be a trading account. The trading accounts for the Ministry will be published in due course after the close of the trading year in accordance with the best commercial practice. No trading undertaking would dream of publishing trading estimates before the trading year had opened, or even in the course of the year, since to do so would obviously prejudice its trading operations. The same considerations apply to the Ministry of Food as to a trading undertaking.
I readily admit that this is a very complicated subject, and I am sure that nobody in the Committee will disagree with me, for there are very great difficulties in estimating cash requirements for a trading organisation with a turnover of well over £1,600 million per annum. I have done my best to explain the various items, and to make them as simple as I possibly can to the Committee. I hope I have succeeded, and I ask the Committee to approve the Supplementary Estimate.

4 15 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Webb: The Minister has had a very difficult job to do. I compliment him, before I come to the critical things I have to say about what he said, on the dexterity with which he made the most of a very bad case. Because it is a case which really is indefensible. We on these benches have always known the difficulties of estimating in advance the activities of a trading Department, and I very well recollect, when I held the office that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman now holds, being charged with all sorts of crimes because—compared with the figures the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has now presented to the Committee—of quite

minor inaccuracies in the Estimates. We recognise those difficulties, and we have never made a lot about that, but here is something very serious.
A Supplementary Estimate that is more than the original Estimate for the Department is a very rare event and it is something to which the Committee must look with very great concern, because we are dealing with the taxpayers' money. A sum of £127 million compared with an original Estimate of £109 million is a change which, I think, calls for a most searching examination. I remember the fuss there was when the party opposite took office about their discovery that we were spending on subsidies £20 million a year more than the ceiling that had been fixed. What a fuss there was about that.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, who is not here, kept trotting it out with all the horror of one who, in his medical capacity, had discovered an outbreak of smallpox and continued to do it in every debate we had about food. But £20 million is chicken feed compared with what we are facing today, this £127 million extra money asked for in early December, long before the end of the financial year.
It is not the first Supplementary Estimate. Every Government had to bring in Supplementary Estimates, but this was a Government who said they would cut down taxation. This was a Government who said that they would make it possible, through budgetary action, for Income Tax and all the other taxes to be reduced, so we have to consider this £127 million against the background of the assurances and promises and claims that were made by this Government.

Dr. Edith Summer skill: Of so-called business men.

Mr. Webb: Yes. It is not working out as they said. It is working out as we said.
In earlier debates we have had on food questions, when we complained about the way in which the Minister was just dismantling his organisation recklessly, without any regard at all to the obligations the Government had to support the prices of the farmers, and all the rest of it, our arguments were dismissed. However, it is working out exactly as we said. We cannot provide producer support and also save money. That is precisely what we


said at that time, and this bill is the evidence of it—this bill of £127 million, which has to be paid by the public of this country. I hope the public will take notice of it.
This Estimate makes nonsense of the Budget, and much more nonsense will be made of it when the effects of the meat scheme are felt. This £127 million is only the beginning of the price we shall have to pay for the ramshackle and reckless way in which our economic and financial affairs are now being administered. When the meat scheme comes along and when the price has to be paid to the farmers which they are demanding—and which they hope to get, according to the vague assurances which they have to accept—there will be an even worse bill to pay than the one which we are facing today.
But my real condemnation of this Supplementary Estimate is based on this ground: that the money is going to the wrong people. The case against the subsidies used to be based on the allegation that the rich and well-to-do got them. That was what was argued. I have taken part in many debates in which it was argued that a food subsidy was a bad thing because the rich were the people who got it although they did not need it. It was described as a bad instrument of economic organisation.
The truth is that the rich and well-to-do are getting this £127 million. When the people in what the economists call the lower income brackets—I call them the poor people, the ordinary folk, who have to struggle to make ends meet every week—are not taking up their rations according to the figures given by the Minister himself, then it is quite clear that the subsidy is going into the pockets of the well-to-do and the rich. They are the only people who are getting it.

Mr. Nabarro: They pay very heavily for it.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Member should come to talk to the old age pensioners of Central Bradford and find out what they have to say about things of this sort.
The point is that the Government's economic policy has not added up; it has not made sense and cannot make sense.

We cannot save money by cutting subsidies and handing the food trade over to the free working of the private market—and the Minister has admitted this, for there were various phrases in his speech which were a confession of the uncertainty of the private market and private purchase—and yet, at the same time, maintain the farmers' subsidies and the guarantees which the Government are committed to give to them. It just cannot be done. It does not make sense, and the proof of that is this Supplementary Estimate for £127 million.
I want to raise one or two detailed points. First of all, not enough information has been given. The Minister gave more information than had previously been made available, but certainly not enough has been given yet to justify the Committee in passing a Supplementary Estimate of such unprecedented figures. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give a little more information which will help us to form a more accurate judgment on this matter than we are able to form at the moment.
Among the detailed points which I wish to raise is that of Cuban sugar. I wonder whether the Minister has read of the anxiety expressed in the newspapers in the Caribbean areas about the effect on sugar growing there of his purchase of sugar from Cuba.
I am not complaining about that purchase, because it has helped us to get rid of sugar rationing, and we on these benches are not in favour of rationing for the sake of rationing.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Webb: Long before hon. Members opposite assumed office we made various demonstrations of our intention in that direction.

Mr. Nabarro: Only sweets.

Mr. Webb: Points rationing, the tea market and all the rest of it. I could give a long list of things, but I do not want to be diverted into that argument, because it is not relevant to the point I want to make.
Is the Minister, or are the Government as a whole, giving any consideration to the effect of this purchase from Cuba on the sugar producers in our own Empire?


Serious anxiety has been expressed by the people there. Those in the trade, who know all about it, believe that the sugar could have been provided by them and ought to have been bought from them and that a very grave mistake has been made by the Government in buying sugar from Cuba. That is the kind of detailed point on which we should like more information than we have been given so far.
My general complaint is that the Government are, as I have said, doing something which does not make sense. They cannot keep the producer of food in this country underpinned and supported by public money and yet save money. That point has been made over and over again from these benches, and this Supplementary Estimate is the most graphic evidence we can have of how fatuous is the view that it is possible to do both things at once.
The trouble is that the public pay both ways. The poor old public, the housewife and the husband who has to give her the money at the week-end to pay the grocery bills, pay both ways; they have not only to pay much more for the food they are getting but they have now to pay much more in taxation, because this Supplementary Estimate has blown the prospects of a decrease in taxation to smithereens. There is no possible chance of the next Budget bringing down taxation. The public have to pay by increased prices and by increased taxes.
In my view, this Estimate is a glaring example of muddle. I do not like to use words recklessly. When I was a Minister I always felt rather resentful of my opponents using words recklessly about my policy and I was always grateful when they used words usefully, even though critically, and tried to say things to me which I thought were helpful. Often I was helped by criticism.
I say, quite honestly and sincerely, that this Supplementary Estimate, which is the largest Supplementary Estimate which has been brought in in relation to the general costs of this Department since the end of the war, is a glaring example of indefensible muddle, and it will be a happy day for Britain when those who are responsible for it are removed from the benches on which they sit.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I think that all of us on this side of the Committee are, naturally, very concerned about the size of this Supplementary Estimate, and that those of us who represent rural constituencies, and who are, therefore, perhaps more concerned with the producing side, are no less concerned than those who represent town constituencies. I wish to confine my remarks primarily to the items under subhead H—trading services—and particularly to the item concerned with cereals, including cereal feeding stuffs.
I should like to say a word on the item relating to potatoes, which shows an increase of about £5 million on the estimate under that heading. We must always be prepared to regard the potato, whether in war or in peace, as a necessary insurance to our food supplies, and be prepared, in the case of that very high cost crop, to meet the farmer, if nature provides a surplus for us, and I do not think that this figure is unreasonable in that very important respect.
To pass on to cereals and cereal feeding stuffs, which is the single biggest item in the detailed statement given on page 3 of the Supplementary Estimate, this big figure, combined with the difficulty of moving the home crop of cereals this year and with the heavy importation of cereals, especially barley, is causing a good deal of apprehension and misgiving among growers, and has given rise, for instance, to the recent correspondence on this matter in "The Times." We ought to examine the implication of this figure very carefully.
I should like to ask a question about this figure, because I imagine that it includes chiefly wheat and barley. I should like to have information of the respective figures for these two crops. I am mystified about the wheat figure. We heard the figure for the bread subsidies, but I am not able to discover what is going on with regard to the trade in wheat. The Minister is, presumably, still purchasing wheat because the farmers are able to obtain the guaranteed price for what they sell, but presumably the millers are obtaining their wheat both from abroad and from the home supply much cheaper than they were. I should have thought that that would have been reflected, before long, in a lower price for


what the millers produce, namely, the flour and ultimately the bread.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb) said that the consumer was paying both ways. I would have thought that in this matter, and also in regard to barley, the consumer would eventually, and, we hope, before not too long, have felt the opposite effect of this increased payment. If that is not so, there must be something very wrong with the system because, clearly, we are getting the advantage of cheaper supplies from abroad, which should be reflected in decreased prices to the consumer.
In the case of barley, we have been confronted this year with great difficulty in getting the crop moved, despite the fact that the Ministry of Food has, quite rightly in my opinion, been purchasing the home crop at the guaranteed price of 25s. per cwt. I believe that that is absolutely the right policy and, in fact, inevitable if the guarantees are to be fulfilled. The question we have to ask ourselves is: could this object have been achieved with less expenditure to the Exchequer, which, again, was a point raised by the right hon. Gentleman?
It could have been done, I think, with less expense to the Exchequer if the Ministry of Food, when it was buying barley abroad, had bought less in June and July, that is, immediately before decontrol took place on 1st August. Actually, the buying, particularly of Canadian barley, was heavy. In defence of my right hon. Friend's action I must say that he was under very heavy pressure to make these purchases. I well remember the debate which we had in this House in February, which was opened, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil), in which the burden of the whole debate was that the decontrol of feeding stuffs would cause a rapid rise in prices which would be reflected in very heavy costs to the farming community, and which would dislocate the whole programme of increased livestock production.
I remember especially a speech by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), to whom we always listen on agricultural matters with very great respect because he speaks from knowledge, particularly of hill farming, and he was considerably

worried in case no feeding stuffs at all reached his part of the world on account of the great shortage which was likely to come upon us. I believe, also, that the National Farmers' Union made strong representations to the Government. I do not know in what terms, but I know that after the White Paper on the Decontrol of Cereals and Feeding stuffs was issued on 22nd January, they pointed out the greatly increased cost which was liable to come on the farmer, particularly the small farmer using these feedingstuffs, and asked the Government to do whatever they could about it. I think that the Minister of Food was under very considerable pressure in this respect. As he said today, this was a matter of insurance, and it may have been, and probably was, a case of over-insurance.
I should like to look at the deficiency on the barley transactions, and ask whether this figure could have been less if the Ministry had bought less of the home crop because it is frequently argued that the reason why this figure is as big as it is is that, first, the Ministry and, later, the importers bought largely increased supplies from abroad against which the Ministry had to sell its own buying, or is about to sell its own buying, with the result that the merchants have been stocked up with supplies from abroad and the Ministry, therefore, has had to handle largely increased quantities over and above what it otherwise would have done.
I have always been a little apprehensive, perhaps more than a little, about these extra imports. The White Paper issued on the Decontrol of Cereals and Feedingstuffs said:
The rate of imports authorised after decontrol will, in any case, be sufficient to maintain the present supply of feedingstuffs.
It went on to say:
For this reason, during the first year after the end of feedingstuffs' rationing, the Government will be prepared, in the event of any critical shortage of supplies leading to a serious upward tendency of prices, to consider authorising such additional imports as may be needed to maintain a livestock population which is expanding in conformity with the White Paper programme.
We cannot help admitting that the matter has gone rather further than that.
Although I have certainly no quarrel with the increased Canadian trade—in so far as we have done more trade in the


barley business with Canada rather than with Russia, that seems to me to be very good indeed and I am glad to see it—there is probably ground for supposing that the figure in the Estimate is higher as a result of the increased imports. In addition, the Ministry might have made clearer to the trade its intentions with regard to the barley that it bought. I know now that it is to release it in accordance with its programme, but importers probably would have bought less from abroad had they known the ultimate intention of the Ministry in regard to the disposal of the barky.
Despite these criticisms, which may be because it is extremely difficult to forecast what will happen in a trade like the grain trade, I still believe that the broad principles on which, my right hon. and gallant Friend has acted have been right. It is far better that the cost obligations to the farmers under the 1947 Agriculture Act should be made plain than be hushed up and passed through in other ways.
We have to face this item, and I believe that it is easily possible to justify it from the results which eventually will accrue, not only to farming but to the consumer. As a result of these increased supplies of feedingstuffs at cheaper prices, it will be possible, in the long run, for the consumer to have cheaper supplies of pork and other meat and all the things to which the feedingstuffs eventually will lead. The picture, therefore, is not half as dark as hon. and right hon. Members on the other side wish to paint it, and I am sure that the Committee will approve this Supplementary Estimate.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) wound up his remarks by speaking about painting. Listening to his speech on the two points that he raised, I thought he was himself an artist of no mean attainment. While the Minister dealt with this most unusual Supplementary Estimate by skating over the surface and getting away with it quite easily, his hon. Friend raised a number of points.
The hon. Member said that he thought the figure of £5 million for potatoes was not too bad a figure in view of the fact that it was essential that in peace as well

as in war we should have big stocks of potatoes. I remind the hon. Member, however, that it has been obvious for some time that the consumption of potatoes had been falling. Despite this, by agreement with the National Farmers' Union there has been an increase of 5s. a ton for potatoes, which seems to have resulted in many potatoes being produced on soil that was unsuitable for them, and at a time when what seemed to be needed was a policy of fewer, and not more, potatoes.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb) painted a very gloomy picture of the future.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not the hon. Member pointing to the fact that people prefer to eat more red meat than the large quantities of potatoes with which his party, when in office, supplied them?

Mr. Dodds: That may be so, but I was discussing a point raised by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West. The expert in carpets seems to have ignored that I was dealing with a specific point raised by one of his hon. Friends. No doubt, the Chair will give the hon. Member a chance to speak later. I noticed his disappointment when he was not selected earlier.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, Central said that bad as the picture is, it is likely to become worse. Potatoes are one of the commodities that might, lead to that result, because the potatoes have to be bought, then dyed blue, and then sold back to the farmers as food for cattle.

Mr. Bullard: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the guaranteed price for potatoes, which must involve buying up any remaining surplus, should be discontinued?

Mr. Dodds: Certainly not. But I queried the point that at a time when fewer potatoes were needed, the price had been increased by 5s. a ton, which in itself must make the figures higher than otherwise would have been the case. The reflection of all this is a bad deal for the consumer, from whose viewpoint I am speaking.
I was surprised that the hon. Member should express concern at the barley that was coming in increased quantities, but did not worry as long as it came from


Canada. The figures are very revealing, and I am wondering whether hon. Members are in possession of them. In the first nine months of 1952, the importation of Canadian barley amounted to 559,000 cwt. In the same period in 1953, however, the figure was 8,861,000 cwt, or 16 times as much as last year. These greatly increased quantities with which we are now faced arise from the policy of the Government in trying to ride almost three horses at one time and in dealing with a policy in contradictory terms.

Mr. Bullard: Will the hon. Member give the total figure for the barley imports? While the Canadian figure has increased—I do not know whether it is 16 times higher, but I agree it is considerably more—he should bear in mind that the imports from other countries have fallen, so that the total is not of the order that his figures would represent.

Mr. Dodds: Barley has been imported at an alarming figure. This is part of the policy to leave the buying of food to private interests who are concerned with private profit, and is largely why we are faced with this problem today.
In his performance at the Box, the Minister did his best to give a lot of information, but as representative of a businessmen's Government, it was a deplorable confession of mistakes. His picture shows that he has indulged in incredible guesswork, when policies which he has instituted are responsible for his coming here today to say that a colossal sum of public money is required for this Supplementary Estimate.
I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is to reply, to say whether it is not possible for bacon to be de-rationed in view of the fact that stocks are high and the freeing of this commodity would be likely to lead to cheaper prices for the consumer. The Government are a party who believe in freedom and in getting rid of controls, and here they have the opportunity of giving something that the public need and which, in the normal flow of free competition, would mean cheaper prices for the consumer.
In dealing with pork, the Minister explained that it came on to the market in big quantities in the summer months

and at a time when there was consumer resistance to pork; but is it not the fact that one of the major reasons for this is that production of the wrong type of pork was encouraged by the flat price that was given? Consequently, much of the pork was too fat, and a good deal of it could not be sold unless great slabs of fat were removed before it was sold. I ask this businessmen's Government to take a greater interest in the types of food that are being given guaranteed prices, and to bear in mind what the public will buy.
I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) is on a very good thing when he asks for a thorough inquiry into the business of the procurement of food, because this Supplementary Estimate clearly indicates that the consumers' interest is not being studied, and certainly that is the case when it comes to the prices that the consumer has to pay. As I have already explained, I am speaking this afternoon from the consumers' angle, and also as a Co-operative Member of Parliament. The Co-operative movement appreciates the great value of guaranteed prices and assured markets, but the movement hopes the Minister and the Government understand that such schemes should not be a cover for gross inefficiency which will force the consumers to pay unreasonable prices.
I should like, in dealing with this Supplementary Estimate to make the point that there is the possibility that these prices may rise even higher. It is one thing for the farmers and the Government to decide in February what the prices are to be for certain foods, but it is quite another thing to ensure that the consumers will pay those prices and consume the quantities of foodstuffs produced. The policy that is being followed by this Government results in prices being too high for many items, so that people cannot purchase the goods which they so badly want. Therefore, there is a need, in view of the shock of this Supplementary Estimate, to have a thorough inquiry into the whole business of the procurement of food.
It cannot be over-emphasised that some of the guaranteed prices are too high. Some of them are too high in the light of world prices. Some of them are too high because in some cases British farmers are inefficient and are being


cushioned in one way or another. The result is that the consumer has to pay the higher prices or do without. If these prices are not looked at and controlled, then it is inevitable that they will reduce the standard of living for over 50 million people in this country.

4.54 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) seems to be an ally of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans).

Mr. Dodds: I am now.

Captain Duncan: I would ask him in his co-operative capacity to visit the Co operative society's farms before he makes any more speeches like the one to which we have just listened. The reason why prices have had to go up in the last few years is because of increased costs. If we can only get the costs down no one will be more pleased to accept lower prices than the farmers of this country. I will welcome the support of the hon. Member for Dartford in any attempt to stabilise or reduce farming costs after he has informed himself about the Co-operative society's farms.
The hon. Gentleman also had something to say about potatoes. With some of what he said I agree, but I should like him to look up the figures for the acreage under potatoes, because that will show that the acreage has gone down in the last two or three years, and for the first time this year is below one million acres. So the popular tendency in consumption has been matched by the acreage planted.
What one cannot allow for, as has already been said by one of my hon. Friends, is the yield from a given acreage. In some areas it goes up, in some it goes down. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister told us there has been a record crop this year, but he was speaking of England. Actually, in my part of Scotland, namely, the North-East of Scotland, there has not been a record crop. The yield there has been about 2 tons to the acre down, which shows how difficult it is, when talking about farming, to generalise on anything.

Mr. F. Beswick: The hon. Gentleman has just given us a warning about generalising in these matters, but

he did make a general statement himself about the increase in prices arising from an increase in costs. He did not give us any particular example, but I should like to mention the increase in the price of eggs. What particular increase in the costs of production are responsible for the price of eggs going up?

Captain Duncan: I am not an egg farmer and I do not know the details, but I should like to give one figure. Increases in farm wages have added £13 million to production costs generally and some of it must apply to the egg farmer.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Captain Duncan: My hon. Friend evidently knows more about eggs than I do.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb) made a most extraordinary speech for an ex-Minister of Food, and, in particular, his ignorance of budgeting seems to me to be colossal.

Mr. Nabarro: Pitiable.

Captain Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman said there was no hope for the taxpayers next year because of the Supplementary Estimate this year. Could anything be more illogical and foolish for the Supplementary Estimate we are discussing today will be added to the Budget figures this year and will have no effect at all on the Budget figures next year.
Then he said that the rich are getting away with £126 million, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was issued with a challenge to go to Central Bradford and talk to the old age pensioners. If I were not a Scotsman, I would be tempted to go to Central Bradford and show up the hollowness of the right hon. Gentleman's claim that all this £127 million is going to the rich.
How does this £127 million work out? As I understand, £52 million represents stock and that stock will be liquidated over this year and next. Therefore, instead of increasing the Budget next year, there will be a credit from it in the Budget if we can sell the £52 million worth of stock for £52 million or more. The rich do not get that. That goes into next year's Budget, and we hope as a


result all will share in the benefits of a reduction of taxation to the tune of £50 million.
The next slice of this £127 million will go to producers in producer subsidies and grants. I do not think it is contested on either side of the Committee that these producer grants should not be given. Some people object to one of them and other people object to another, but they are accepted in their general application. The object of these subsidies is to ensure a steady and rising increase of agricultural production in the best interests of this nation, and to enable us to play our part in our balance of payments difficulties. I do not think we need argue about that.
The third slice of this £127 million consists, broadly, of consumer subsidies, for instance, the 1d. a pint on milk. That has been generally accepted and put into effect both by this Government and the preceding one. This subsidy has been reduced by this Government, but still appears in these figures. So it is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying that the rich are getting it all, because it represents a saving on next year's Budget through the disposal of Ministry stocks, and the producer and consumer subsidies.
There is one other aspect of this matter, the increase of about £56 million on cereals. The sooner we can alter this situation the better. When the Estimates were framed, the world price of cereals was higher than the price paid to the British farmer. Now we have the situation that the world price has, for the first time since the war, gone below the guaranteed minimum price paid to the British farmer. We still have the guarantee under the Agriculture Act, 1947, which was produced by the party opposite, and this Government have pledged themselves to continue that policy, so the guaranteed minimum price remains.
What is happening today? My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) mentioned wheat and rye. I want to talk about oats. At present, there is only one buyer for millable oats, the Minister. The guaranteed minimum price under the Act, as fixed at the February Price Review, is 66s. 6d. a quarter. No miller will give that price today because he can buy imported oats on the free market for dollars or sterling

or other foreign currency at a lower price. Millers have all they want, they know that the Ministry are buying because they must, and they are waiting for the Ministry to unload. That seems to me to be an astonishing situation and explains the increase of £20 million.
Last year I do not suppose that a penny was paid for the guaranteed price because that was obtainable without any subsidy. There is another £20 million for the increase in stocks. I hope those figures are adequate, but if this is going on in wheat and barley as well as in oats, with the Minister being the only buyer, unless he can realise some of these stocks at a reasonable price this year he may find himself in difficulty in meeting the estimate of £55 million extra for the cereal crops.
I am only too happy that my right hon. and gallant Friend and the Government have done away with the bulk purchase and Government trading system of cereal buying, because if this is what it leads to when world prices are below the guaranteed prices the charges in future years on the taxpayer by a Government which goes in for this kind of system would be phenomenal. I warn hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly the policy makers on the Front Bench, that a return to bulk purchase in cereals when world prices are below the guaranteed price—

Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think, then, that we shall be getting back into power shortly?

Mr. Nabarro: Not a hope.

Captain Duncan: There must be an Election within two or three years and, being a friendly sort of chap, I am giving hon. Gentlemen opposite a warning as to what will happen if there is bulk buying and Government trading in grain when the world price is below the guaranteed price. The sooner we get away from that system the better. If there is one thing I am glad of above all it is that nearly all these figures are non-recurring. We shall not have this vast figure, or the details of it, to worry about next year. We shall be back into the private purchase of grain, cereals, meat, sugar and all the other agricultural articles mentioned under subhead H. It will not only save the taxpayer money and not increase the cost of food, but will be a benefit to the people.

5.6 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: We have had a most remarkable speech from the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). What the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been treating us to in the last 10 minutes has been a most effective exposure of the confusion into which the policy of this Government have got us, but he has drawn from it an inverted conclusion.
As I listened to the hon. and gallant Gentleman it seemed to me that he was demonstrating, with all the expertise of the practical man-in-the-know, that we cannot hope to combine a system of guaranteed prices to British farmers with an attempt to restore a free market in grain. Indeed, I was hoping modestly to point out that little dilemma to the House myself, and I was grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for doing it for me so effectively, because it has saved me a good deal of time and effort.
But that the hon. and gallant Member should then go on to draw the opposite conclusion is most remarkable. What he has proved to us this afternoon is that the reason why we have in this country at the moment such high prices for home-grown food, such high costs in British agriculture, and such heavy subsidies and costs as are represented in this Estimate, is that instead of getting—I am sorry. Sir Austin, but I cannot continue.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I regret that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) has not been able to complete her argument and I hope that she will have an opportunity later in our deliberations of resuming what would undoubtedly have been a most interesting exposition of the policy of the Labour Party for agriculture.
If one thing has become more certain than another in the passage of the last few months it is that the erstwhile "black sheep" of Labour agricultural policy, represented by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), has now secured so many adherents to his party that he now has a majority support. For the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb) and many other hon. Gentlemen opposite evidently take the

view that all farm prices are too high and that the profitability of farming has risen to a much too high level.
The hon. Lady who was, unfortunately, unable to continue her speech, was evidently developing that theme. [An Hon. Member: "That is quite a wrong conclusion."] This is a most remarkable transformation and I hope it continues until the next Election, for the country will then be able to realise exactly where the Socialist Party leads us, and that is really towards the destruction of British agriculture. [Hon. Members: "Nonsense."] Oh, yes, the destruction of British agriculture by letting in floods of foreign imports.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Nonsense.

Mr. Nabarro: And by ensuring that farmers' profits are cut down to such an extent that they are unable to provide for legitimate and desirable replacement of plant, equipment and buildings and the expansion of their enterprises. But if I continued that argument it might lead me rather wide of the food Supplementary Estimate which is before the House.

Mr. Frederick Peart: The hon. Member has made a very strong accusation. After all, it was the Labour Government that introduced the 1947 Act and gave guaranteed prices in peace-time for the first time, and the policy of cheap food was a policy which prevailed in the inter-war period when the hon. Member's party was in power.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is clearly neglecting the change of emphasis which has taken place, as is shown by the fact that the hon. Member for Wednesbury is now in the ascendant and the Right Wing Socialist opinion, represented by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), is in the minority.

Mr. Percy Wells: Nonsense.

Mr. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that there are still considerable trading activities in his Ministry represented under the subhead H. Certainly, they are considerable, but they show a marked diminution compared with the extent and scope of State trading activities which we discussed on 18th March last when the Ministry of


Food Estimates were last debated. The end of cereal rationing, the end of the rationing of tea, sweets, eggs and sugar and so on, have all had a profound effect upon the scale of State trading operations and that diminution is very warmly welcomed on this side of the Committee.
I believe that within the passage of 12 to 18 months, given pursuance of the policy which we have followed during the last two years, there will be two important results most vitally affecting the consuming public. First, food will be abundantly available for all and at much more reasonable prices than have prevailed in the last few years. Secondly, we shall be rid of the very heavy burden of consumer food subsidies which successive Ministers of Food have been obliged to place before this House since 1945.
When I talk of the elimination of these consumer food subsidies I do not in any way confuse them with the very legitimate desire on this side of the Committee to continue the generous measure of agricultural production subsidies to furnish increasing incentives for a rising scale of home food production. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb) has momentarily left the Chamber. I was fearing that he had become a party casualty after his salutary experience at Leeds, which was relayed on television. He was missing from the fifth and last day of the debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech. The right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) deputised for him and even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) had to be called in to wind up that debate on the price of food.
We welcome the return of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central in spite of his nauseating hypocrisy today when he tried to tell us that it was the policy of the Socialist Party when in office to abolish food rationing. It was nothing of the sort. In six years when they ruled this country they managed to abolish one item, other than the points rationing scheme, and that one item was sweets, and, of course, a few weeks later they put sweets back on the ration again. The fact is that the policy of the Socialist Party was to continue rationing forever.

Mr. Bence: What about the Estimates?

Mr. Nabarro: The policy of the Socialist Party was to continue food rationing forever, which would mean a bigger and bigger burden on the taxpayers' shoulders and a larger and larger Supplementary Estimate presented to the House of Commons.
I turn now to one or two items in the Estimate. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] What I have been saying was a general exposition of the problem and I am now concerning myself with the individuals items. As former speakers have already pointed out, a very large item in this Estimate is on account of sugar. The original Estimate was a credit of £900,000. The revised Estimate shows a debit of £36,600,000. The amount of the increase, therefore, is exactly £37,500,000. This is the outcome of the exceptional and non-recurring purchase of dollar sugar, mostly from Cuba. That was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he presented his Budget last April.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the most perfect poker face which he was able to present in the House when he replied to me on 6th February last and I appealed to him to do just that and make an emergency non-recurring purchase of sugar, if necessary from dollar areas, because we were purchasing at that time, and we have been continuing to purchase and we shall continue to purchase, the maximum available supplies of sugar from the sterling area under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, 1951.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central endeavoured to draw a red herring by suggesting that there is disquiet in the Caribbean arising out of this exceptional and non-recurring purchase of dollar sugar. Nothing is further from the truth. There are a few agitators, generally of Communist origin in the Caribbean, as elsewhere, who would have people believe that Britain is walking out of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and not purchasing Jamaican, British Guianan and other West Indian supplies. There is no truth whatsoever in that. All the figures and facts which are available show that we have been purchasing under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement every ton of sugar that has been made available and produced in the sterling area.
We are, of course, not alone in the Commonwealth Agreement. It is not only a question of Britain. We have a lasting commitment to provide large supplies annually to Canada and large supplies annually to Pakistan. We are under contract to provide for the whole of the British Empire within the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement of 1951. It is, therefore, false, misleading and hypocritical on the part of the right hon. Member for Bradford, Central to introduce this innuendo—for that is what it is—that Britain is contracting out of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and not honouring her contractual bond.

Mr. Beswick: Does all this mean that the hon. Member is in favour of bulk purchasing?

Mr. Nabarro: On the contrary. The Minister of Food made an exceptional, non-recurring and final purchase of dollar sugar to safeguard against any sudden increased demand for sugar when it was derationed. In fact, the demand for sugar after derationing has not been as great as had been expected and sugar refiners in this country have had excess stocks, but I commend my right hon. Friend not only upon his prudence, but also upon his caution and perspicacity.

Mr. Beswick: Now the hon. Member has made matters worse and says that the agreement to purchase the output was exceptional and final.

Mr. Nabarro: That is quite untrue. What I said was that there was an exceptional and non-recurring purchase of 1 million tons of dollar sugar in addition to this country having taken the entire available supplies under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I know I shall carry my right hon. and gallant Friend and the Treasury Ministers with me when I say that it is the policy of the Conservative Party to buy in the Empire every ton of sugar that is available before we seek dollar sources of supplies.
I have a particular constituency interest in this, because when hon. Members opposite sat on this side of the House the Worcestershire fruit-grower was in a very parlous condition. [An Hon. Member: "Is the hon. Member one of them?"] I do not grow fruit; I represent the fruit-growers. A large part of the

crop was wasted, because sugar for the housewife was strictly rationed and because the machinations of hon. Members opposite resulted in an artificial shortage of tinplate.

Mr. Douglas Jay: indicated dissent.

Mr. Nabarro: It is no good the right hon. Member muttering and shaking his head as he was principally responsible at the Treasury. Today, as a result of the enlightened policy of the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, we have abundant tinplate, and abundant sugar. The result is that the Worcestershire fruit-grower is selling his crop again.

Mr. Beswick: rose—

Mr. Nabarro: I have given way twice to the hon. Member and I hope that he will be able to speak in a few moments, because I shall want to interrupt him quite a lot.

Mr. Beswick: I am interested in this argument. The hon. Member is now complimenting the nationalised steel industry on providing the tinplate which we wanted.

Mr. Nabarro: That is a specious argument. What has occurred is that, as a result of the promise of denationalisation, there has been an upsurge of productive effort and supplies of tinplate have more readily become available for the canners and processors.
I wish to speak for a few moments on the item for eggs shown in the Supplementary Estimate—a subject of which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) seemed to consider I have special knowledge. In the Supplementary Estimate for 1953–54 the figures show that the original amount in respect of eggs and egg products was a credit of £1,500,000. The increased, or revised, Estimate is a debit of £3,600,000 and, as the first figure was a credit and the second figure a debit, there is, in fact, an increase in the sum to be provided of £5,100,000.
Before rising today I took the precaution of turning to the last Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Food presented on 18th March, in respect of the financial year 1952–53. I found that the figures for eggs were then much bigger.


Then they showed that the revised amount required was £15,500,000. In other words, one of the results—one of the salutary results—of the policy of my right hon. and gallant Friend has been to reduce the commitments in respect of consumer subsidy for shell eggs from £15,500,000 to £3,600,000.

Mr. Beswick: What about the price?

Mr. Nabarro: I shall deal with the price in a moment. That is a saving of no less than £11,900,000. I said "one salutary result"—there are many more. Not only has the burden on the taxpayer been reduced in respect of subsidy, but, so far, the elimination of controls on shell eggs has saved no less than £900,000 in a full year in respect of administrative costs, a large part of which is reflected in the extraordinary saving in Ministry of Food salaries, shown in this year's Estimates, of £1,032,500, under item A. Not only have we a large economy in respect of subsidy but also an economy of £900,000 in a full year in respect of administrative costs and, thirdly, the consumer is getting 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. more eggs and getting them through legitimate channels—that is, over the shop counter instead of from under the shop counter.

Mr. Bence: Nonsense.

Mr. Willey: rose—

Mr. Nabarro: I will give way in a moment. It is no good the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) saying "Nonsense." What my right hon. and gallant Friend has done is to eliminate the black market in eggs.
When, on one occasion last year, I pressed him to reveal what percentage of the total output of eggs in this country went through the packing stations and from there to holders of ration books, he was compelled to admit that about 50 per cent. of the eggs produced in this country never went on to the ration books. Fifty per cent. fell by the wayside;50 per cent. was the extent of the black market. That is why the policy of the right hon. Member for Bradford, Central and his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) resulted in one miserable, stale, shell egg per ration book, per consumer, per week.

Mr. Willey: Would the hon. Member compare like with like? Surely he appre-

ciates that egg production varies according to climate from year to year and a proper comparison is with 1950. Will he make the comparison with 1950? As he is now talking of fresh eggs, will he explain why the Ministry prevent the retailer getting them to the consumer quite fresh and cheap?

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member shows himself extremely ill-informed. We should not be concerned with the exact process of distribution so long as ultimately the consumer gets fresh eggs readily, and at a reasonable price. Under the rationing system it was one egg per person, per week. Today, eggs are relatively abundant. Hon. Members keep taunting me on the question of price, but in my part of the Midlands eggs average 6s. 3d. to 6s. 6d. a dozen. They may be bought readily in the shops and, if one is near a farm, they may be bought at the farm gate.

Mr. Bence: "Eggsactly."

Mr. Nabarro: That might be a good pun in Scotland, but it is not a good pun here.
The fact is that, all political considerations apart, my right hon. and gallant Friend has put a fresh shell egg back on the breakfast table and made it readily available at what is not an excessive price although I am quite prepared to admit that for a short time eggs reached a phenomenally high price. But they never went as high as was predicted in the "Daily Herald," which said that the 1s. egg was on the way.
What did the right hon. Member for Bradford, Central announce as his policy to cure the troubles of egg distribution that were confronting the late Government, and again advocate during the period of office of the present Government? He wrote in "Reynolds Sunday News"—a newspaper amply supported by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick)—that one of the things we ought to have done was to retain the old rationing system for eggs and make it much more stringent. Instead of allowing any producer who had fewer than 25 hens to sell eggs off the ration, that provision should be reduced to 12 and we should allow any person with fewer than 12 hens to sell eggs off the ration.
In other words, there is precisely the contra-distinction between the policy of


the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central and that of my right hon. and gallant Friend. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central believed in more and more controls and decreasing food supplies. My right hon. and gallant Friend has gone in for a policy of freedom. The result has been, of course, an abundant supply of all foodstuffs, and without any very substantial increase in price—

Mr. Beswick: And a great increase in consumption?

Mr. Nabarro: I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge, there has been a great increase in con sumption—46 per cent. more meat this year; 38 per cent. more bacon this year—

Mr. Beswick: What about milk?

Mr. Nabarro: "What about milk?" says the hon. Gentleman. There has been a very slight decline in milk, which is referred to in the Supplementary Estimate. It is a very slight reduction. And why? Simply because the consuming public can today buy the food on which traditionally the British people have been bred and reared—that is beef, bacon, eggs, good body and sinew building food—instead of liquid refreshments.
Let me turn for a moment to the question of bacon and ham, which is shown in the original Estimate as £4,500,000. Now, the new Estimate is £9,700,000. The first point I would make in that connection is that during the last 12 months the bacon consumption in this country has risen by 38 per cent., in spite of the fact that the price of bacon on 16th August last was arbitrarily reduced by my right hon. and gallant Friend.
Under the old system of subsidies and the ration book, what happened was that the bigger the consumption of rationed foods the bigger the subsidy burden for the taxpayer to shoulder. It is, therefore, hypocritical for hon. Gentlemen opposite to complain about the increase in the subsidies, and the sum that this Committee is to vote upon under this Supplementary Estimate, when, at the same time, the people are being provided with vastly increased supplies of the food that they most legitimately desire.
Last year, the comparative figures for bacon were much higher. This year, we are asking for an increase from £4,500,000 to £9,700,000. Going back to the Supplementary Estimate for 1952–53, the figure asked for then was £17,100,000. In other words, in regard to bacon alone, we have succeeded in reducing the subsidy liability by an amount in excess of 80 per cent. In addition, we have given the consumer 38 per cent. more bacon, and the price has not rocketed above the level that the great majority of consumers can afford to pay.
Those are salutory achievements. I welcome the fact that on the completion of the second year of a Conservative Government we are now within measurable distance of abolishing the Ministry of Food and ending food rationing. I liked the statement made in the recent White Paper on the future of marketing arrangements—the short, crisp assurance, no "ifs" or "buts," no caveats, nothing of that sort—those few, short, telling words:
food rationing will end in 1954.
Just as I would have expressed it myself had I written the White Paper. It could not have been a more faithful representation in a few words of everything for which I have been campaigning in the last few years. It is the exact opposite of the Socialist economics of calculated scarcity.
I wish to say a final word about the farmers. A good deal of scorn is poured, politically, by hon. Gentlemen opposite upon Her Majesty's Government's recent statement of policy for the future of farm prices and the methods of implementing the price and market guarantees under Part I of the 1947 Agriculture Act. I advisedly used the word "politically." In fact, there is a good deal of criticism remaining, and I have no doubt a good deal more forthcoming, from the farming industry itself—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Austin Hudson): I hope the hon. Gentleman will not develop that argument too far, as the question does not arise upon consideration of this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Austin.
I will pass quickly from a general consideration to those items which do arise


under the Supplementary Estimate which are, of course, the five items referred to by my right hon. and gallant Friend for direct agricultural subsidies on page 6, Class VIII, of the Supplementary Estimate.
A large part of this £127 million which we are voting today is the price we are paying to the farming community for guaranteeing their markets under Part I of the 1947 Act. I believe that those subsidies are necessary. I believe that in the passage of time they will prove highly productive. But I wish that a few more members of the farming industry would appreciate the very high cost to the taxpayer which the present subsidy arrangements involve. I wish they would be a little more appreciative of the Conservative Government's efforts, which are genuinely trying to reconcile facts that are not irreconcilable by any means. They are reconcilables, the fact of a free market while still giving the necessary support prices and guarantees to the farmer under Part I of the 1947 Act.
I compliment my right hon. and gallant Friend on the progress of his policy in the last two years. Last year, I told the Parliamentary Secretary that the sooner he cut his throat—metaphorically—the better. Now I tell my right hon. and gallant Friend today that the sooner he cuts his throat—metaphorically—the happier I shall be. The merit of their food policies in the last two years will assure them, not only of esteem and generous support in the country, but also the support of every hon. Member on this side of the Committee. Their policy has been attended at every stage by signal and outstanding success.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I was struck by some of the statements of the Minister. He explained that this extraordinary Supplementary Estimate has been brought about by taking action to decontrol. He also pointed out that heavy purchases have been made in order to provide an insurance. When one takes out an insurance policy, for whom does one provide? Who are the beneficiaries? I noticed in one newspaper this week a statement that the futures grain market is to be re-established—

Mr. Cyril Osborne: It is open.

Mr. Bence: —and I wondered to what extent heavy purchases by the Ministry

of Food were an insurance to importing merchants because they had not had the benefit of a futures market. Here is the Ministry of Food restoring bulk buying to private interests. Private importers are not in a position to take advantage of the futures market to cover themselves. So this Government of businessmen, acting in the interests of businessmen, cover them by buying excessive quantities of imports to assure regular supplies for the importers and to offset them.

Major Lloyd George: That really is not so. I said that it was vital that there should be a complete insurance for the producer of fat stock and so on and for the consumer with regard to bread. If the hon. Gentleman will ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) to refer him to the speech he made last February, he will find from that speech that the right hon. Gentleman was very much concerned in case there were not sufficient supplies when we de-rationed. That is the purpose of insurance.

Mr. Bence: We move on from that. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I have not finished yet. We move to the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), who said that importers are importing oats, barley and wheat at prices far lower than those the Ministry is paying to the British farmer. The importers, who have had handed to them a free trade in grain, are importing at lower prices—getting the benefit of lower world prices—whereas the Ministry is buying from the British farmer at higher prices, and the taxpayer is paying for that.
It would have been far better if the Government had acted in the interests of the whole community. They should have imported at the lower prices and sold at the prices they were obliged to pay the British farmer. That would have avoided a great deal of the Supplementary Estimate. It would have shown a profit to the Treasury.

Captain Duncan: The British farmer would still get his guaranteed minimum price, higher than the world price, and the taxpayer would still have to pay.

Mr. Bence: The British Government would have been buying at the world price, which is lower than the guaranteed minimum price, and then selling at the


minimum price to British users of grain. That is fair. Now the user of imported grain is buying at a low price and the taxpayer is being asked to make up the difference. That is implicit in the statements of the Minister and the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South. The Government are paying a high price and the trader is paying a low price. I do not see why the procedure could not have been reversed. This only shows that we have a Government of businessmen's friends.

Mr. P. Wells: Does my hon. Friend realise that, in addition to the guaranteed price, there was also a guaranteed market?

Mr. Bence: Yes, there was a guaranteed market as well.

Mr. Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of implementing the guarantees given by his Government in the 1947 Act? Will he answer "Yes" or "No" to that?

Mr. Bence: Yes, I am in favour of implementing the guarantees to the British farmer; but in implementing them why should the British taxpayer be compelled to buy all the crop when the trader who uses the product can buy in the free world market as a lower price? Why do not the British Government buy in the world market and let the users of the grain buy from the British farmer?

Mr. Osborne: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is anxious, as I am, that the old age pensioner should have as low a a cost of living as possible. Does he want to force the British trader to buy in the dearest market, and so put up the cost of living?

Mr. Bence: No. I want the British trader to pay the same price to the British farmer as the British Government have to pay. Then, by the Government buying the cheaper grain in the world market, we could use the profit to increase the subsidies or to give free milk to old age pensioners. We could use in a great many ways the profit gained by trading.
I have heard the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) talk many times about consumer and producer subsidies. If a subsidy is provided for a

working man—say, a boilermaker in a shipyard—so that he can get the basic foods, which I venture to suggest he needs quite as much as the hon. Member for Kidderminster, then that is a consumer subsidy. But if a farmer or a producer gets a subsidy to enable him to obtain the raw material he needs, that is called a producer subsidy. To the farmer a subsidy given for grain or fertiliser is a consumer subsidy. It is an encouragement to him to consume more in order to produce more.

Captain Duncan: In terms of that statement, how does the hon. Gentleman explain the calf subsidy?

Mr. Bence: That is a different proposition. I said that a subsidy for fertiliser was as much a consumer subsidy to the farmer as is a subsidy on meat, milk, eggs or bread to the worker in industry. The calf subsidy is not the same. It is dishonest far anyone to get up and talk about separating consumer from producer subsidies. Every subsidy encourages people to consume even if it is a subsidy on raw materials used in the process of the manufacture of another product.
The demands for wage increases demonstrate that the subsidies on basic foods were obviously a stimulus to further production, thus stabilising wage levels. The hon. Member for Kidderminster talked about unlimited imports ruining British agriculture.

Dr. H. Morgan: I should not bother about him. He is not worth it.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber.

Mr. Bence: I am not like the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I am not an expert on every subject raised in this House. I have made no claim to be an expert on agriculture, but I cannot accept the statement that unlimited imports would be the ruin of the British industry. The reputation of British agriculture was made on the production of livestock from freely imported cereals and coarse grain, linseed cake, cotton cake, and so on. Those who know anything about farming would not deny that statement.
The hon. Member wants to put a tax on the import of tomatoes and all sorts of horticultural products in order to bolster up the production of those commodities


in this country; but he must not make the general statement that unlimited imports would do serious harm to British agriculture, because they would not.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman may represent an industrial constituency. I represent one which is largely horticultural. I am interested to ensure that Worcestershire fruit and horticultural producers should be able to sell their crops. To do that they need a reasonable measure of protection in the form of tariffs to prevent Continental imports from flooding our markets, which was the policy of his party and which is still advocated so misguidedly by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), who was obliged to withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the situation has changed. We do not live in a static world. We live in a dynamic world. What may have been a reasonable policy between 1945 and 1951 may not be a reasonable policy in the years to come. I know a little about agriculture. It would be far better if our farmers were encouraged to produce more livestock than tomatoes in Worcestershire. There are other agricultural products which are of far more value to this country.
I repeat my conviction—I hope I may be convinced that I am wrong—that the excessive Supplementary Estimate has been made necessary because the present Government were determined to compel importers to take over responsibility for importation and the heavy purchases were a guarantee to them that they would not lose and that the British taxpayer would bear the loss because there was no futures market.

Mr. M. Follick: On a point of order, Sir Austin. Ought not the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to withdraw the remark which he made about my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle)?

Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) was not in the Chamber at the moment concerned. It will be within your recollection, Sir Austin, that I sympathised with the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East, who was obliged, for reasons of health evidently, to withdraw from the Chamber.

The hon. Member for Loughborough should inform himself before he makes such wild accusations.

Mr. Follick: I was not in the Chamber at the time, but I listened to what was said by the hon. Member for Kidderminster in his intervention, and I understood it to be not a nice statement to make about an hon. Lady who was taken ill during a speech in the Chamber.

The Temporary Chairman: What the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said was perhaps unfortunately phrased. We were all sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East had to withdraw because of illness.

5.52 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I am very happy to have caught the Chairman's eye, because I regard these debates as very important. I have always thought the Ministry of Food was one of the greatest and most important Ministries that we have had. Its work since its inception has been of the greatest value to the country. That makes it all the more regrettable to me that the Minister has apparently accepted that his Department is to die at some time in the future. If the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) had his way, it would be as soon as possible in the future, even though it meant felo de se by the Minister himself.
The speech of the hon. Member for Kidder minister was very attractive, and, I thought, unusually modest for him. The first part of his speech could be summed up in a phrase in an editorial in "The Times" this morning which said:
Subsidies are not needed now to keep prices down for consumers, but to keep them up for producers.
That symbolises the first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
My view is that if food of the right type is not made available, and cheaply available, to the public at large, then the detriment to us nationally is as serious as it could be. The hon. Member for Kidderminster made a point of the fact that we should be brought up not on liquid refreshment but on meat, and he specified all the meats that he could think of at the moment. No doubt what he felt was that everybody was brought up on protein foods of that type in the coun-


try's heyday and that we wanted to return to that. He pointed out that the consumption of milk was falling. He said that that was of no moment because increased amounts of bacon and meat were available. I want to deal with that point of view, and I shall try to do so dispassionately. I do not believe that, if I could help it, I have ever made a party point on this subject.
The Minister will agree with me that the benefits which have sprung from his Department are based upon new knowledge gained only this century, really in the last 30 years, by the advisers whom he has had in plenty, whose quality is exemplified by people like the late Jack Drummond. In 1900 our people had lots of meat, red meat, white meat and all kinds of meat. They lived on cadaver because it was very plentiful and very cheap. Years ago in my constituency my constituents who were really poor were compelled, when they were out of work, to buy "slink" meat, which was known in North Staffordshire as "cag mag" which they could get for 1d. or 2d. per lb. However slink and diseased the meat was, its protein content was not affected. If the hon. Member for Kidderminster was right scientifically in his views, those constituents should have been in robust health. But they were not. Thirty years ago the infantile mortality rate in my constituency was more than 90 per thousand children born, whereas today it is only 26 or 28.
These improvements have not been the responsibility of medical men or the growth of medical science alone. In part. at least, they have been due to improved knowledge about nutrition and what the Ministry of Food has done to improve the nutrition of our people ever since its inception.
The Ministry has not been able to do anything very wonderful. Although it had been planned earlier, it came into existence in 1940 at a time of great scarcity. Really all that it brought about was an improved quality of bread and more milk. The only other factor was what was termed "fair shares" at a time of great stringency. But we had less food during the war than is available today. It was much more monotonous because there was less variety. However, we began to get a greater supply of milk,

and the people benefited by it. Today milk consumption is nearly 60 per cent. greater than before the war.
The bread changed and became coarse. Nearly all its constituents were left in and were not taken out to feed fowls, pigs and cattle. We ourselves ate all the constituents of the grain. It was not very palatable to our people, but they had to get used to it, and they did their best. We cannot get away from the fact that one or two simple things like that made all the difference in the world to the health of our people.
People who have visited this country have seen the effect upon our children of the welfare foods, the cheap milk and the kind of bread provided for them, although they have had less meat than was consumed a generation previously. They have found the children now very much taller, heavier and brighter, and certainly very much better looking. The hon. Member for Kidderminster, who showed great capacity for making out his case, none the less based it on gross ignorance of the facts.

Mr. Nabarro: I am not qualified to quarrel with the hon. Member on dietetic values, but I would remind him that it was his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb) who coined the phrase, "A little of what you fancy does you good." [Hon. Members: "It was Marie Lloyd."] The right hon. Member for Bradford, Central coined the phrase in this context. My hon. Friends and I believe that "a lot of what you fancy does you good." The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central was that it was such "a little of what you fancy" that he reduced us all to a mere starvation level

Dr. Stross: I will forgive the hon Member that intervention.
I wonder if the Minister will allow me to say that I must quarrel with him on the principle of what he is doing? If he will look at the Supplementary Estimate and see how it is framed, he will appreciate that I am not going to complain of the fact that more money is being spent or that the subsidies are greater. I will, however, quarrel with many of the actual items in the Supplementary Estimate. After all, when we look at it, we find that the increases are in those things


which I have already pointed out were in plentiful supply in 1900, 1910 and 1914; namely, chops, steaks and cadaver generally; that he is spending more and more money on such things, and that there is a fall in the amount of money being spent on what we call the health foods, particularly milk and milk products.
When I put a Question to the Minister not long ago, I suggested that milk consumption had fallen by 2 per cent., but that the cows had been very generous to us, and that there was an increase in production of about 2 per cent., so that the gap was now 4 per cent. Since I asked that Question, we have had further figures showing that that trend is increasing.

Mr. Osborne: rose—

Dr. Stross: I promised not to speak for long. I know that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) would like to intervene, but it is a fact that one hon. Member on the other side took an awful long time and was interrupted a great deal.
The trend of milk production today is such that we have a milk surplus greater in extent than the amount to which I referred in my Question a month or two ago, and I should like to ask the Minister or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when he answers the debate, whether he has read, as I am sure most of us have, the suggestion that surplus milk might be evaporated down and packed in containers so that it has the consistency of rather thin cream? It need not be sweetened, and it keeps for an indefinite time. In that way, we could be certain of putting it into consumption again. If he will promise to look at that, I think it would be helpful, because I think it would be a better use of surplus milk than making it into cheese. It would not be expensive, and lots of people, irrespective of income levels, would be able to get some of it. If he adopts that suggestion, the Minister will be acting the part of physician and nutritionist, and will be helping us all.
The only other thing I want to say, although it is on a subject on which one could speak at great length, is that we are going to have complete derationing and the end of all subsidies, if the Government have their way, either next year

or shortly after. That means that the foods in which I am interested most, namely, butter, milk, cheese and eggs, will become more expensive, which I think will turn back the clock entirely. If, in addition to finding these foods expensive—and the Minister has told us that, if he derations butter, he cannot do it without allowing the price to rise to such an extent that people in the lower income groups will not be able to buy it; he admits that that must be the case—if, in addition, we get a period of unemployment or short time working or cuts in wages, the Minister will have to take the blame for having done the very thing which, I am sure, when he thinks about it, he hates the most. He will have injured the very people who cannot defend themselves—the aged who are poor, the sick who cannot work, and the young children who cannot protect themselves. I implore him, therefore, before he leaves his present office, to watch this situation.
Lastly, may I ask him this question? The cheapest part of his service, which does so much good, is the propaganda department. Why should that be entirely rejected, and all teaching disappear?

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I have promised to take only five minutes of the time of the Committee. Both sides will agree that in this Supplementary Estimate of £126 million there is a sum of £60 million or £70 million on extra subsidies, and about £50 million or £60 million for extra stocks. We are not arguing about the stocks, because they will come back next year, and therefore we are arguing about the £60 million or £70 million extra subsidies, and that is the point at issue.
I should like to ask this question. These extra subsidies will either go, as one hon. Gentleman opposite said, to the farmers, or, as my hon. Friend has said, to the consumers. We must face this dilemma. I ask hon. Members opposite whether they wish to eliminate these subsidies altogether. If so, where do they stand on the guarantees to the farmer, both of prices and markets, under the 1947 Act? They must face this question. If they wish to cut out the subsidies, I wish they would come to my constituency and tell my farmers that they intend to cut them and sweep away the guarantees given under the 1947 Act.

Mr. Webb: indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: It is your dilemma, not ours.

Mr. Osborne: We are not objecting to the subsidies. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] The question that all of us have to face is the dilemma of the conflicting interests of the consumer, the taxpayer and the farmer. As the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans)so often says in the House, the consumer wants the cheapest possible food, since we, as a great industrial nation, having to sell our exports in a competitive world, have to get our costs down as much as we can, and in any production costs the cost of food is a big factor. That is an undeniable fact.
If we drive this policy to its logical conclusion, we shall put the agricultural industry back where it was in 1921, and I do not think that anybody opposite wants to do that, although the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) did say that "unlimited import of agricultural produce would not ruin British agriculture." I fear that it would, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's Front Bench would support his statement. I should like to hear someone from that Front Bench say whether they are in favour of unlimited imports of agricultural produce into this country.
I should like to ask whoever is to wind up the debate for the Opposition to face this dilemma, and to face it honestly. For goodness' sake, let us stop playing silly party politics over a very serious matter. Here is a very difficult problem of how far we can honour those promises that we made in 1947 with regard to agricultural prices and guaranteed markets. How can we, at the same time, honour our promise, which was given from both sides to the electorate, that we would try to bring down the cost of living, and how can we honour the promise given to everyone in the country that somehow we would reduce taxation?
These are the problems that we have to face, and if the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up on the Opposition side can help me by answering these question, I should be very grateful. I should like him to repudiate what his hon. Friend has said about unlimited imports of foreign agricultural produce, because I am sure he will be aware that at least

my constituents, and most good farmers in this country, are doing their best to produce the maximum amount of food at the lowest price possible, and that they are naturally disturbed when they hear statements like that of his hon. Friends.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am sure that we all regret very much the indisposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle). She shares the affection of everyone here, and we all hope that a speedy recovery will bring her back to us very soon.
We have been discussing this Supplementary Estimate in so far as it deals with trading services, but I should first like to say a word or two on the Supplementary Estimates at large. These Supplementary Estimates, in November, have already reached the figure of £150 million. Has the Financial Secretary to the Treasury forgotten that we debated this matter in March, 1950, when we had a debate on a Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House deploring the failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? This was in March, 1950, when the Supplementary Estimates were less than what they are already under this Government. There was a lot of wild talk about mismanagement by my right hon. Friend who was then Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Health Estimates had gone up 37 per cent. and how outrageous that was. The Supplementary Estimates are more than 100 per cent. above the original Estimates. Why is not the Leader of the House with us now?
We have had debates on previous Supplementary Estimates on food. We have a precedent for a large Supplementary Estimate, and that was in 1947–48. It was practically entirely explained by the Andes Agreement and the pre-payment which was made to Argentina. It is a very complete explanation, and in any case that was six years ago. What has happened since? Whilst I was at that Box, sharing with my right hon. Friend the responsibility for the Ministry of Food, we introduced one Supplementary Estimate, for £10. In fact, we made a considerable saving on our trading services.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Food has already presented two Supplementary Estimates, one


for £26 million and, as recently as in March this year, one for £21 million. The Committee will remember that on the first, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, with pristine freshness, explained the Estimate away by saying that it was for increased stocks, which had been doubled by the previous Administration. He talked about vast stocks, but he had forgotten what he said about Christmas bonuses and the cupboard being made. I did not know whether he was deliberately misleading the House or was ignorant and incompetent, but under the rules of order I am obliged to accept the second ground.
The argument I raised then was that the Government were asking for increased money on the Supplementary Estimates because of their decreased receipts. In other words, they were distributing less food and building up stocks. Why? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave his reason, but this Estimate shows how right I was in saying that that was the time, when consumption of practically every foodstuff was lower than it had been before, when those stocks ought to have been released to the housewife.
That is not the explanation of the present Supplementary Estimate. In fact, this Supplementary Estimate reflects greater receipts to the Ministry of Food in this financial year. As far as it represents more food it is welcome, and as far as it means that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has failed in his intention to reduce consumer subsidies it is again welcome; as far as it is necessary in order to implement the guarantees to farmers, it is not unwelcome. Unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, this is not in the main the explanation for this Supplementary Estimate. As he said, we are dealing with two different matters this afternoon, the question of the subsidy, which is the cash deficiency over sales during the year, and the cash statement, which is the cash required to finance the trading operations of the Ministry. Let me take the subsidy first.
Apparently, the figures show that the subsidy has increased by £68 million. I make that adjustment because, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has explained, it covers also service charges, notional charges and the like. It represents an increase of £4 million in the agricultural subsidies. How much longer is this going on? In 1952–53 the original

Estimates showed £28 million for the agricultural subsidies. This Supplementary Estimate shows that they are now £40 million. How long is this miscalculation going on? What is the basis of this miscalculation? I further want to know how much longer this disproportionate subsidy is to be paid. I want some declaration of policy about it.
Now I turn to the Ministry of Food subsidy. We have the particulars about this subsidy, because I asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a question on Monday. It shows, in this total figure, decreases of subsidy on sugar, milk, margarine and cooking fats, on which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a profit. He promised and boasted about decontrol. What is deterring him from decontrol of margarine and cooking fats is that he is anxious to retain his fortuitous profit.
These commodities are not taken up, they are not subsidised, and they are still rationed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Why? Because he is making this fortuitous profit, which he is anxious to hold. There is an increased subsidy on bread of £7 million because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's plot failed; people were not taken in by white bread. The price differential was too great. This shows how right I was in accusing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of having that intention in mind. He admits it now, in this Estimate.
That leaves £73 million to be accounted for. How is it accounted for? Firstly, by £18,700,000 on meat. That is not due to increased consumption. [Hon. Members: "Yes."] Oh, no, it is not. Make a comparison with the original Estimate. We know what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman estimated to be the consumption of meat his year, and it has not increased. In fact, this year we consumed in six months out of nine less meat than we did in 1950. That statement is based on figures published by the Ministry. It has not been increased supplies. There has been no fortuitous increase in supply. We are receiving this year 63,000 tons of beef less from the Argentine, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman told the House. That made his Estimate 63,000 tons down. We are receiving 60,000 tons less from New Zealand. We are receiving much more


than we estimated for from Australia. That was the Australian ewe mutton. We have received rather more home produced pork. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman revealed the cause of that increase this afternoon. It is pork that he found difficult to sell.
There has been no increase of consumption. There has been an increase in the supply of the particular meat we talked so much about, ewe mutton and fat pork, and the deficiency is entirely accounted for by the price that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has had to pay for that pork. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman now realises that he was wrong about it, because he has adjusted the price. In the meanwhile it has taken £18 million of the taxpayer's money to account for the miscalculation that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made and his failure to adjust the price.
There is another item: "Miscellaneous, £19 million." A pretty large sum for "miscellaneous," which covers a multitude of sins. It covers one sin in particular, and that is a £5 million subsidy on eggs. What a fantastic position to be in. What a fantastic position the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has got himself in. We have had a flush year in egg production, but we have had high prices throughout the year. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is not here. If he were, I would remind him that in the flush of 1950 we were selling eggs at 3d., and that they have never been lower than 5d. this year.
We have a position today in which eggs are selling at 35 per cent. more than they were at this time last year, while production costs are falling—we have had a fall in the price of feedingstuffs—but the taxpayer is paying hundreds of thousands of pounds a week to stabilise the price. What can be more ridiculous than this? When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman set forth towards this fantastic conclusion, I warned him that he would land himself in a Marx Brothers' free economy. That is what he has done—eggs at 7d. and subsidised. [Hon. Members: "Which Marx?"] I said the Marx Brothers.
There are other items in this group of subsidies which are not food subsidies at all, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. Let me take the first item, which is

"Animal feedingstuffs, £9 million." That is not a food subsidy. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has claimed the credit for abolishing the subsidy on animal feedingstuffs. There is no price control and the £9 million is not to secure a decrease in prices. Indeed, the Ministry are hoping that there will be an increase in prices to offset this loss. This is a loss to the taxpayer, because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now obliged to realise stocks with a market falling against him. It is the cost to the taxpayer of a stupidly conducted measure of decontrol. That is all it is.
The next item is "Home-grown cereals," which shows a loss of £20 million. That is not a subsidy, and in fact it is not on home-grown cereals. It is on cereals generally, so that this is a misnomer anyway. There is no price control, and there is no subsidy properly so-called. The flour subsidy has been abolished. The right hon. Gentleman takes the credit for it. This is a straight forward commercial loss owing to the foolhardiness of the right hon. Gentleman, and in this financial year it will cost the taxpayer, on these two items alone, £28 million.
What a fantastic position. The money to be found by the taxpayer has been increased, while the benefits to the house wife have been taken away. After all, the right hon. Gentleman has reduced the subsidy to six commodities. He has abolished the subsidies on eggs, flour, margarine, cooking fats and sugar, all leading to price increases in the present year. Bacon bears a subsidy today of 3¼d. as against 7½d. 12 months ago, and butter a subsidy of 5½d. as against 8¼d, 12 months ago. Only the subsidies on bread and cheese have increased by very small amounts over the last 12 months. The housewife, therefore, is not getting the value for money which she was getting before.
But food prices in the world have decreased over this period. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House say only a few weeks ago? He said:
Food prices, on the other hand, have dropped by only a very small amount. The drop in the price of food imports has been something like 5 per cent., and more than half of that is in feedingstuffs, and we ordinary humans do not eat them either."—[Official Report, 10th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 898–9.]


We do eat the animals which eat the feedingstuffs, and it ought to reflect itself in cost. But here we have falling prices, no increase in domestic costs—because, after all, the Budget speech was made after the February Price Review—and yet increased prices to the housewife. Eggs up by l¾d., butter by 4d., margarine by 2d., sugar by 1d. and lard by 2d. This has caused the wage increases which are disturbing our economy today.
I can only say that I agree on this matter with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby), who said recently that
the housewife is dissatisfied because, although world prices are falling, retail prices in this country continue to rise. The farmer is anxious because he has seen it all happen before. He remembers only too vividly that the last time it happened he was sold down the river by the politicians.
But the hon. Gentleman did not say that it was the same politicians who are doing the same thing again.
It is worse than this, because, against this background, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has increased the charge on the taxpayer. We remember the Parliamentary Secretary coming to this House in March and explaining that the subsidy was then running in the region of £250 million. This is a straightforward additional charge upon the taxpayer. In fact, to quote the Leader of the House in a previous debate, it is a charge of 1s. on the Income Tax. What irrational, irresponsible behaviour by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Prices up, world prices falling, and, at the end of the day, the taxpayer has got to fork out another Is. in the £.
I now turn to the figures for the trading services. These figures, by and large, confirm the conclusions to which we have come on the subsidy figures. They also show an extra £5 million on potatoes. Where is the hon. Member for Kidderminster, because the last time we discussed this matter—in March—he rose from the benches opposite and asked, "Why are the Government mucking about with the potato trade?" It has cost another £5 million, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will explain to the hon. Member for Kidderminster why they are so mucking about.
But the main item is sugar, and the position about sugar is really too fantastic to believe. In forming his Estimate, the

right hon. and gallant Gentleman allowed a credit of £900,000 for sugar. He was going to make a slight profit. He now comes to the House and says that the expenditure will amount to £36,600,000. In other words, £37 million more. It is all right for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say, "Oh, but this is in stock. We will release it next year, and it will then help the Estimates." But sugar has been decontrolled. Therefore, the Ministry of Food has upon its hands in a free market unprecedented, enormous stocks of sugar.
In April, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman told the House that the sugar cost £19 a ton, but, as usual, he was wrong. The Ministry has subsequently informed the public that it was not £19 but £24 a ton. What does this mean? It means that more than a million tons of raw sugar are going to be in the hands of the Ministry and undisposed of, not now, but at the end of the financial year. This is because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was trapped into making a silly agreement with Cuba. We understood from him that it was to be spread over two years. We now know that there is a price variation which has induced him to take the sugar on immediate delivery. We know that, as the world market goes, he may be well above the world market price if he buys it next year.
In the first case, therefore, this was an enormous miscalculation. We have these colossal stocks of raw sugar at a time, when, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have closed the refinery at Greenock. At the end of the year, the Ministry will have more on its hands. It will have 250,000 to 500,000 tons of Commonwealth sugar on its hands, over and above the Cuban sugar. If that is not an enormous miscalculation, I do not know what is.
But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has no adequate facilities for storing this sugar. It is now being dumped on airfields. There is going to be a grave risk of its physical deterioration, and that will mean a heavy loss to the taxpayer. The world market is falling, the price of Commonwealth sugar has fallen, and this is the explanation of what has happened.
The refineries are refusing to take the sugar from the right hon. and gallant


Gentleman even for storing. Why? Because they are determined to break the hold of the Ministry of Food on the import of sugar. They also believe it is unfair that prices should be controlled to the refineries and not be controlled when the sugar leaves the refineries. This is something that is going to cost the taxpayers dearly in this financial year and the next. It is going to add another enormous burden to the already heavy burdens placed on the taxpayers through the foolhardiness of the present Government.
What about cereals? We understood from the original Estimate that these cereals were going to be disposed of, and that the Ministry would make a profit of £1½ million. Let us look at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said during the Budget debate. He said:
This reduction"—
that is, in the expenditure of the Ministry of Food—
flows from our policy, such has already been announced, of decontrolling eggs and cereals.
He went on to say:
But a large once-for-all reduction has been secured by the receipts expected from sales of Ministry of Food trading stocks of feedingstuffs and other grains. Here again the Exchequer benefits from cereal decontrol."—[Official Report, 14th April, 1953; Vol. 514. c. 43.]
What has happened? There is not a profit of £1½ million. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has admitted that this year alone there will be a loss of £20 million. The taxpayer will have to pay £20 million this year, and that is rather different from a profit of £1½ million. But subhead H, the trading services, shows that it can be worse than this. That subhead shows, again, that at the end of this financial year the Ministry of Food, out of the grain business, will have on its hands £59 million worth of cereals on a falling world market.
This is where the Ministry went wrong. It should not decontrol—at any rate it should recognise that it is a very difficult operation to decontrol—on a falling market. It should not decontrol on a market like the grain market which was falling very acutely. Moreover, in that situation, with world prices falling, one does not announce to the world, in January, that one is going to decontrol,

because people, knowing that world prices are falling, just do not buy. In that situation one does not do what the Minister did—one does not panic, as he has revealed today; about stocks. The Ministry panicked. It held off and then went in and bought. Those stocks have now been depreciated.
Nor does one announce that control is to be brought to an end at the next harvest and, in fact, decontrol in August. To deal with this reasonably one finds out what the position is after the harvest and before taking measures to decontrol. But, in any case, this is a complicated transitional arrangement which should be made with the trade. There was no transitional period in this case but only straightforward decontrol. That is all it was.
What is the position today? I will give only one illustration—barley. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not yet sold his barley but is going to start some time this month. He is going to have on his hands one million tons of barley, but at the same time he has allowed to be brought into this country enormous quantities of dollar barley to the extent of 11 or 12 times the amount brought in last year, and has already spent £13 million worth of dollars on this cereal. This barley happens to be cheaper than the barley which the Ministry of Food is obliged to buy from the farmers.
The result is that there is a grey market and a black market. The grey market is that our farmers, of course, using their sense, are buying imported barley, which is much cheaper than the barley they sell to the Ministry. The black market is, as the Minister of Food knows from his own enforcement officers, that some farmers are buying imported barley and are selling it to the Ministry. What a fantastic position to have got oneself into.
This, then, is the result of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's three great measures of decontrol. Eggs substantially dearer and still subsidised, costing the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds a week. Sugar decontrolled, so that the Minister is now facing enormous losses by physical deterioration, because he has not the facilities to store it, because of the fall in prices—and because he is facing a monopoly which is determined to exploit the position. Then there is the decontrol of cereals, which


has brought really the biggest, most fantastic muddle we have ever experienced in national food affairs. It is not surprising that Mr. Oscar Hobson of the "News Chronicle," who is friendly disposed to the Ministry, says:
This certainly comes as a shock to the City and indeed must do to the country at large.
He continues:
No wonder Mr. Butler has been so gloomy about tax reliefs next year.
and he goes on to say:
I do not want to exaggerate, I won't say the Budget is in ruins, but I say it is badly cracked and cannot stand any more rough treatment of this kind.
Since his appointment, the right hon. Gentleman has treated this House with arrogance. It has been an arrogance born of ignorance. He is a Johnny Head-in-the-Air:
Once with head as high as ever,
Johnnie walked beside the river.…
…One step more! Oh sad to tell,
Headlong in poor Johnnie fell.
That is what has happened to him. The only thing he can do now is to resign. I bear him no personal ill will. We need not lose him from that Bench—he can displace the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. In that position, incompetence is at a premium, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, rather than be disturbed by the recollection of thing she said in the past, can be transferred to another place where the atmosphere is less critical.

6.35 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): We have all enjoyed the speech we have just heard and, if I may say so, no one more than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) himself. Indeed, at times I thought my right hon. Friend and myself on this Bench were in serious danger of damage by blast, because the whole tenor of the hon. Member's speech reminded me of a newspaper report of a speech which ended "Loud cheering, in which the audience also joined."
During his intermittent references to the Supplementary Estimate, I thought I detected in the hon. Gentleman's speech, as in that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb), some concern for the taxpayers' money. There is, proverbially, more joy in heaven

over one sinner that repenteth than over the 99 who need no repentance, and indeed it does not lie in the mouth, either of the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend, when one recalls the administration of food under the late Government, to charge anyone else with lack of care of the taxpayers' money.
Nobody likes a large Supplementary Estimate, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman for Bradford, Central that it is very proper that it should be subjected to serious examination. I would not quarrel with that, or with the methods by which this examination has been undertaken. In many ways it has been a very useful debate, marred only, as the hon Gentleman for Sunderland, North mentioned, by the unfortunate indisposition of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle). I know that I express the views of both sides of the Committee when I express the hope that her indisposition proves purely temporary, and that she will soon be back in her place attacking Her Majesty's Government with her usual vigour.
A Supplementary Estimate of this size calls for examination. That is what it should be given, and given in full, but I know that hon. Members who have studied this question will agree that a Supplementary Estimate of a substantial size is, at any rate, more understandable in the case of a Department which is largely a trading Department, than it would be in the case of an ordinary, administrative Department. I hope that my right hon. Friends will not take advantage, in the future, of my saying that, but, of course, it is a fact that, when we are concerned with very large-scale trading operations, the outcome of which we have to attempt to forecast some 16 months in advance, it is really not possible to insist on the same precision in the original forecasts which, certainly in my view, it is proper to insist upon in the case of normal Departments of Government. Fluctuations in prices and supplies inevitably make a forecast of that kind imprecise, and I know that the Committee will consider this Supplementary Estimate with that thought very much in mind. It is certainly the case that the history of the Ministry of Food has not been wholly free from Supplementary Estimates. That perhaps confirms what I was saying.
The right hon. Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb) committed himself to the proposition that this Supplementary Estimate was of unprecedented magnitude. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North was more cautious, perhaps temperamentally, and phrased it in a different way, but the statement that this Ministry of Food Supplementary Estimate is of unprecedented magnitude is just not true. The righthon. Gentleman himself will recall that in the financial year 1947–48 the then Minister of Food presented a Supplementary Estimate for £142 million. Therefore, it simply is not true to discuss this matter on the basis that this Estimate is of unprecedented magnitude.
Equally, the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to argue that Supplementary Estimates generally, on the scale on which we have had them this year—I think his phrase was "make nonsense of the Budget." If that be true, then almost every Budget since the war has been made nonsense of. As the Supplementary Estimate itself shows, taking this one into account, we are so far this year concerned altogether—I do not seek to under-rate it—with the substantial sum of £150 million. But let us take previous years. In 1946, there were Supplementary Estimates of £218 million, and in 1948–49 Supplementary Estimates of £309 million.
It would really seem to indicate complete ignorance of the financial arrangements which have operated in this country since the war to suggest that a Supplementary Estimate of this size, important though it is—and I will not seek to argue to the contrary—is of such an extraordinary nature as to make nonsense of the Budget. It must be perfectly apparent to hon. Members that the possibility of Supplementary Estimates on this scale must inevitably be in the background of the minds of all Chancellors of the Exchequer. Indeed, if it were not, they would not be taking account of what has happened in this country during the years that have followed the war.
Then the right hon. Member for Bradford, Central used a curious expression. He said that the money was going to the wrong people. He did not pause to tell us with any degree of precision who the wrong people were. In a moment I shall indicate with, I hope, some detail, pre-

cisely where this money is going. If I may anticipate that part of my observations, the money has gone mainly in two directions—first of all, into additional stocks; and, as to the greater part of the rest, into support for British agriculture.
Is it now the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that support for British agriculture in accordance with the policy of the 1947 Act necessarily involves money going to the wrong people? In fact, to put it bluntly, is British agriculture composed of the wrong people?

Mr. Webb: The simple point I made was that that part of this Supplementary Estimate which was involved in extra subsidies was due to the buying by the well-to-do people. The ordinary people—the people which the "Economist" calls the lower income brackets; indeed, I believe I myself used that phrase—are not buying their rations. They are not taking them up. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Really, it is no good hon. Members opposite saying that, because the fact is that the rations are not being taken up. Meat and other things which are subsidised are being bought by the well-to-do, and, therefore, the money is going there.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That intervention of the right hon. Gentleman is not only inaccurate but, what is far more important, wholly irrelevant.
The overwhelming proportion of the subsidy element in this Supplementary Estimate—to be precise, £55 million out of £68 million—goes in producer subsidies to the implementation of the Agriculture Act, 1947. The right hon. Gentleman pointedly did not answer the question which I put to him. whether his observation that the money so provided was going to the wrong people was or was not intended to be a reference to support for the British Agricultural community. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] The right hon. Gentleman's avoidance of that plain issue will not pass unnoticed in the country districts, though it will bring great joy to his hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), I am sure.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, during the course of one of the most physically energetic displays that I have seen in this Chamber—I do not necessarily attach the same adjective to


the intellectual quality of his observations—was distressed that we had large quantities of sugar in this country, and took the more serious point that it might be stored in conditions in which it might deteriorate. My right hon. and gallant Friend authorises me to say that he has no apprehensions on that score. Sugar, as the hon. Gentleman may know, is a very durable commodity, and my right hon. and gallant Friend is quite satisfied that the arrangements made for its storage are adequate to secure that what the hon. Gentleman fears will not come to pass.
It is perhaps an interesting contrast between the administration of the Minis try of Food by my right hon. and gallant Friend and by hon. Members opposite that whereas, under their administration, the complaint of the nation was that there was too little sugar, now the hon. Gentle man complains that there is too much. I am sure what the housewives would prefer. When the hon. Gentleman referred, as did the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds), who is not in his place—

Mr. Dodds: On a point of order—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I hope he will forgive me, and that I shall not be thought to be prophesying if I say that in one sense he was in another place. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman who is, I know a most faithful at tender in our debates. It was my surprise at seeing the pile of books beside the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), instead of the hon. Gentleman's cherubic countenance, which caused me to overlook his presence.
Reference was made to the quality of the pig meat which is being produced, and to the question of fat pork in particular. It so happens that part of the additional provision called for in this Supplementary Estimate is required to deal with precisely that state of affairs. As the hon. Gentleman recalls, my right hon. and gallant Friend has made arrangements and varied the price schedule so as to encourage the bringing forward of the smaller, lighter and less fat pig.
That has meant that the little pigs have gone to market—more little pigs, and earlier. There has been a considerable increase coming into the market. That is the reply to the hon. Member for

Sunderland, North who said that we were not getting more meat. The pigs have come into the market earlier in more substantial quantities, with the result that we can make increased provision in this Supplementary Estimate. Therefore, I do not think there is any need for us to quarrel on this point.
We are agreed that the wholly legitimate tastes of the consumer require greater consideration than they received under the previous arrangements, and I submit that they receive it under my right hon. and gallant Friend's arrangements. But part of the consequence of that generally welcome change is the necessity to come forward and, in this Supplementary Estimate, ask for certain additional sums.

Mr. Dodds: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no time to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He will, no doubt, appreciate why. I have indicated that I know he is here.
As I have already said that this Supplementary Estimate breaks down into two large sections. One is the part which arises from the fact that stocks have either been bought to a greater extent than was forecast, or have been disposed of to a lesser extent than was expected. That accounts, in all, for £52 million of this Supplementary Estimate. That necessitates our coming to Parliament for that sum, but it would be quite unreal to suggest that that £52 million is gone.
Subject to possible variations in price we have the stocks. We have the articles represented by this money, with the consequence that in future years we shall secure some relief, either by their disposal—and my right hon. and gallant Friend indicated his intentions in that direction—or by diminished necessity for fresh purchases. Therefore, when talking of this very large sum of money, so far as the £52 million is concerned it is important that this Committee and people outside should realise that it is not money which has, to use a colloquialism, gone down the drain. It represents reserves held in the form of cereals and sugar and not in cash. That is an important aspect of the matter.
Then there is the other large item to which I have already referred—that involved in the subsidies—which accounts for about £68 million of the provision.


About £55 million of that sum is involved in the support of British agriculture. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite must face the fact that this is at a time when the foreign price of certain commodities, notably cereals, has been falling.
The Committtee really must realise that whatever system we adopted—whetherit is the monopoly bulk purchase system favoured by hon. Members opposite or by the freer system which my right hon. and gallant Friend is working—we should be forced, inevitably, to face the problem of whether we are to maintain the guarantees to British agriculture by guaranteed prices, and so on, against a background of world prices which are varying, or whether we are to abandon the guarantees given under the Agriculture Act of 1947. If we are to maintain those guarantees in such circumstances, demands such as are made in this Supplementary Estimate are inevitable.
The right hon. Member for Bradford, Central made a very wise and penetrating remark when he said, "You cannot underpin British agriculture and save money." Where does the right hon. Gentleman go from there? Is he criticising this Supplementary Estimate because it does underpin British agriculture?

Mr. Webb: indicated assent.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that that is his view. It is important that we should understand this. It is a point which may well be noticed outside. The essence of the problem facing us, as it faces anyone who criticises this Supplementary Estimate, is that we start from the basis—at least, most of us do—that the case for the expenditure of public money has to be made.
Now that the details of how this money is to be spent have been deployed with great clarity and force by my right hon. and gallant Friend, and now that the Committee knows that, broadly, this expenditure is either in support of British agriculture or is invested in stocks, hon. Members opposite must search their consciences as to whether they can say that they object to that expenditure and that it should not be made. That is the straight issue which arises on this Supple-

mentary Estimate. I concede that the onus lies on those who ask for expenditure to show the need for it. We have tried to indicate the public purposes which we feel this Supplementary Estimate fills.

Mr. Jay: Is the Financial Secretary going to say anything at all about the use of the Civil Contingencies Fund in this affair, to the extent of £41 million, which was a practice roundly condemned by his right hon. Friends—particularly the Leader of the House—in previous Parliaments?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I need only recall that when the right hon. Member opposite sat in my seat and asked for the renewal of the higher limit of the Civil Contingencies Fund, its use for this trading purpose was one which he commended to the House. I cannot do better than to say that on that point the right hon. Gentleman was talking very good sense.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £126,843,450, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies; a grant in aid; and sundry other services, including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

To report Resolution, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir Charles MacAndrew in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1954, the sum of £126,843,450 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

To report Resolution, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — KABAKA OF BUGANDA (DEPOSITION)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I beg to move (under Standing Order No. 9),
That this House do now adjourn.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the decision of the Government to depose the Kabaka of Buganda and to require him to leave his territory.
I think most of us in the House were shocked when we heard the statement by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on Monday. We were aware that in Uganda there was a growing demand for self-government by 1960. There is a Governor in Uganda whom I think hon. Members admire, and for whom, I hope I may say, I have a personal friendship. I would suggest that the events which have taken place indicate that even in Colonies where we have the more progressive Governors today they cannot keep abreast with the tempo of African advance within the framework of the present colonial administration.
During this discussion we shall raise some doubts about the legality of the action which the Government have taken, but I propose to leave that to others who are greater authorities than I am in matters of law. I wish to begin by emphasising that I believe that we shall make a mistake if we regard this matter as one of a recalcitrant King. There is no doubt that in the attitude which the Kabaka has adopted he is reflecting his people and is reflecting the decisions of the Grand Council in Buganda, the Lukiko. The right hon. Gentleman said on Monday that the Lukiko is an advisory body to the Kabaka and pays the closest attention to his wishes. No one in the House will take the view that the Lukiko is a tame body doing just what the Kabaka advises.
I have been to Uganda twice. On the first occasion, four years ago, I met the elected members of the Lukiko. They were men of very decided views and they were not only critical of the Governor of that time but were also critical of the policy of the Kabaka in not being sufficiently advanced, and the House can take

it for granted that if the Kabaka of Buganda has taken the action which has been described it is because he knows that the people of Buganda and the Lukiko, which is its Grand Council, are demanding that these steps should be taken.
I should say that the development which the right hon. Gentleman has announced has arisen from two fears among the people of the Buganda. The first is the fear that Central African Federation may be followed by East African federation. The second is the fear that the Uganda, which has been traditionally and historically an African State, may cease to be an African State.
In June, the right hon. Gentleman delivered a speech to the British Africa Club, in London. That speech was little reported in the British Press. Indeed, one had the impression that he had made an incidental and unconsidered remark. In fact, that speech was a carefully considered statement. I have a verbatim report of it in my hand. It began by arguing the political case for a larger geographical area; continued by urging the military case; concluded by advocating the economic case; and then that speech, which occupies two full pages in the "East Africa and Rhodesia" of 2nd July, ended with a much more elaborate declaration than the Secretary of State read to this House on Monday. I will read the exact words:
You have seen in the controversies over Central African Federation where Her Majesty's Government stand in these matters. That Federation, both politically and economically, will be of immense benefit to the three Central African Territories is, I believe, an established and unshakable fact. Nor should we exclude from our minds the evolution as time goes on of still larger measures of unification, and possibly still larger measures of federation of the whole East African territories. This is the sort of idea which the man who gave his name to the Rhodesias would, I believe, have supported.
That speech was blazoned in the whole Press of East Africa. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] There were great headlines in the "East African Standard." I hold in my hand a copy of the "East Africa and Rhodesia" which says:
Secretary of State Favours East African Federation.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman understood what a dynamo of discontent that speech would start in East


Africa where, at present, the overriding fear is one of a federation which would be under white domination?
In Central Africa, the fear of the African population was domination by the whites in the Rhodesias. In Uganda, the fear of the African population was domination by the whites in Kenya. In Uganda, there is little colour bar; in Kenya, it is rife. In Uganda, little ownership of land by Europeans; in Kenya, the White Highlands. And the fear of the people of Uganda, who have been given every ground for thinking that they are moving forward to the establishment of an African State, of a federation which would place them under white domination—that is the first source of the discontent which finds expression in the action of the Kabaka.
The very name federation has become so unpopular in Uganda that even social and economic organisations which included that name in their title are now striking it out because of their fear of unpopularity. The first issue of a new paper of the Uganda National Congress describes how, before a great meeting in Kampala, a book was publicly burned because it advocated federation. That is the background atmosphere to this situation, and for that atmosphere the Colonial Secretary is more responsible than anyone.
The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he has given a reassurance to the Kabaka which the Kabaka has accepted. I will only say this: if the Kabaka is now satisfied with that reassurance, the people of Uganda have not yet been reassured, and because I want to make constructive proposals tonight, my first proposal arising out of this analysis is that a firm declaration should be made by the Government that East African federation is not intended by the Government or, if it is intended at a later stage, that it will not be imposed upon the people of East Africa without the consent of the African population through their representative organisations.
The second fear is that Uganda will not remain an African State. Already in that Protectorate there are 40,000 Asians and 5,000 Europeans. Now, because of mineral discoveries, such as the discovery of copper in the Mountains of the Moon,

there is a fear of still further immigration, and it is in that situation that the African population is disturbed as to whether the advance, which has always been promised, towards becoming an African State, will be recognised or not.
These two fears have led to the two demands which have been voiced by the Kabaka. The first demand is a time limit for the independence of Buganda. The second demand is for the transference to the Foreign Office. I must say at once that I should regret the separation of Buganda from the rest of Uganda. If that demand has now arisen in Buganda, it is due to the fact that the two fears which I have described—of a white dominated federation and of a change in Uganda from its advance towards an African State—have closed the people in and retracted them upon themselves.
I do not believe that the secession of Buganda from Uganda is the real issue which we are discussing tonight. Other provinces are also demanding independence in the same way as Buganda has demanded it. The kings of other provinces have gone to the Governor with the same demand. I say, with some knowledge, that if the principle of full self-government were recognised for the whole of Uganda and a political plan negotiated with Africans to apply that principle, there would be no fear of any secession of Buganda. My second suggestion of a constructive kind, therefore, is that the Colonial Secretary, in further conversations with the Kabaka, should make this proposal to him. If this proposal were made I am quite sure that the danger of the secession of Buganda would be removed.
The second demand is for transference to the Foreign Office, and that demand arises because the original agreement of 1900 was made with the Foreign Office. I do not think it is a serious issue. One might say that the Foreign Office have done a very good job in the neighbouring territory of the Sudan, and I regret that in the recent elections they have not been more fully rewarded for it, but if Uganda or Buganda are to go forward to full self-government, the Commonwealth Relations Office would obviously be more appropriate for them than the Foreign Office. I have no doubt at all that if the principles which I have been urging in this situation were accepted,


there would be no difficulty about this matter.
Finally, the complaint against the Kabaka is that he has declared his intention of refusing to nominate members to represent Buganda on the new Legislative Council. In that respect he is emphatically reflecting a popular view and a view which has been endorsed, indeed initiated, by the Lukiko itself. There is one small constitutional point which enters into this decision by the Lukiko. Under the Agreement of 1900, the Lukiko has the right to object to legislation passed in the Legislative Council, and the fear of the Lukiko is that if it has representation in the Legislative Council, that power of effective criticism will pass.
I am not pretending that that is the fundamental objection. The fundamental objection arises from the profound disappointment with the proposals which have been made for the new Constitution in Uganda and for the new Legislative Council. Let me give the composition of the Legislative Council, as it is now and as it will become. At present, 17 officials; in the new Legislative Council, 29 officials. At present, four Europeans; in the new Legislative Council, seven Europeans. In the present Legislative Council, four Asians; in the new Legislative Council, seven Asians. In the present Legislative Council, eight Africans; in the future Legislative Council, 14 Africans.
Summed up, that means that, apart from the official members, 5,000 Europeans will be represented by seven members, 40,000 Asians will be represented by seven members, and 5¼ million Africans will be represented by 14 members.
These proposals caused the profoundest disappointment in Uganda and encouraged the fear that there will not be an advance towards an African State. The figures give the 45,000 Europeans and Asians the same representation as the 5¼ million Africans. There had been a general hope among the African population, particularly under the new Governor, that an advance would be made so that the vast majority of the people might have a larger representation than the two minorities.
I therefore make my third suggestion to the Minister, which is that a new

Constitution should be prepared, with a common electoral rôle on an educational basis. That would not mean that every African would be enfranchised, but it would mean that every African who passed the educational test would be placed in the same position as a European and an Asian. If that proposal were made in the conversations with the Kabaka, that the new Constitution, in January, should be followed within a limited period by an extended Constitution of that kind, I am quite sure that the Kabaka would change his view.
My concluding remarks I make with some reluctance, but I feel impelled to make them. I do not take a personal view of politics. I recognise that tonight we are criticising not only the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, but also that of the whole Government. But the right hon. Gentleman has a special responsibility. He has the responsibility of making recommendations to his colleagues and of initiating policy. I also feel that he has a special responsibility because many hon. Members of this House have come to the view that his personal attitude and his mishandling of one colonial question after another have now become a disaster to this country.
I believe that that policy is disastrous to the reputation of this country, to the well-being of the peoples of the Colonies and to the racial harmony of the world. Therefore, I propose to repeat tonight the words of one of the right hon. Gentleman's Conservative predecessors, addressed to a Conservative Prime Minister. This is what Leopold Amery said, quoting what Cromwell said to the Long Parliament when he thought that it was no longer fit to conduct the affairs of the nation:
You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: A few weeks ago there was one place in Africa which could be regarded as a very contented Colony. It had almost the attributes of a potential earthly paradise. It had tremendous resources of flora and fauna, and the people were happy. I had the privilege of meeting out there, and at home, Sir Andrew Cohen and Lady Cohen. I regard Sir Andrew Cohen as


one of the ablest and most liberal-minded men who have ever gone to a Colonial Territory. I have had the privilege of meeting the Kabaka out there, and of attending in Uganda the sort of meetings—which would be quite impossible in Kenya—where African, Asian and European can meet together in the same hotel in happiness and exchange views.
That sort of thing is utterly impossible over the border in Nairobi, and everyone must know, who knows anything of East Africa that the haunting fear that menaces Uganda is the possibility that at some time or another the rule of Uganda may pass under the control of the white settlers of Kenya. I am not at all biased about this matter one way or another. I am not particularly a monarchist. If it is any consolation to the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that in the last dispute, as between a king and an Oliver, I am on the side of Oliver. I, therefore, approach this matter with some show of impartiality.
It really is a tragedy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has said, that in this Parliament, with its tolerance, good government and first-class administration, that the right hon. Gentleman should on this subject decide to make a speech without apparently any prior consideration. I have typed out a short and relevant extract from "East Africa and Rhodesia." Slap-happy as the right hon. Gentleman normally is, he was hitting sixes all over the field, and those who went to retrieve the ball found that they were going in all directions. At the East Africa Dinner, on 2nd July, 1953, he said:
To my mind the age of small political and small economic units has passed.
After that general kick at our smaller allies, he said:
We have to have in the modern world large agglomerations of political influence and power, countries—to put it bluntly"—
and no one has a greater capacity than the right hon. Gentleman to put things bluntly—
…who can do something, if not all, to defend themselves if they are assailed from outside, and who do not have to rely entirely upon outside resources to defend them, whilst at the same time vehemently protesting that they are to be free of outside influence.

That goes for Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon. He then went on to say,
You cannot on the whole build political independence upon the foundations of defensive dependence.
Having just attacked the Atlantic Treaty, he then decided to turn his attention for the first time to colonial affairs and to deal with Uganda. On 30th November, he said:
Nor should we exclude from our minds the evolution, as time goes on, of still larger measures of unification, and possibly still larger measures of federation of the whole East African territories."—[Official Report, 30th November, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 783.]
There is no doubt what that means. There is no doubt that it is a suggestion for the federation of Uganda and Tanganyika, both of which are happy, and of Kenya, with the fears that brings to the whole of the African people. Then, as if we had not said enough to disturb African feelings, he thought that the moment to say:
This is the sort of idea which the man who gave his name to the Rhodesias would. I believe, have supported.
It is not part of our debate to talk about the policy of Cecil Rhodes, but he is remembered in Africa as the author of the Jameson Raid, and the man who said, "I would annex the planets if I could."
Then, as for his social reform, it is hardly possible to find in history a more ham-handed statement about such an extremely delicate matter at such an unfortunate time. The right hon. Gentleman came to the House on 30th November, Monday last, and, without prior warning and without any suggestion to anyone in this House that anything had happened in Uganda, and without any suggestion of any possibility of debate, made a statement in which he said—and I want to be as delicate with the right hon. Gentleman as I possibly can, but there are moments when he handles facts so lightly that he almost verges upon inaccuracy—
It is with great regret that I have to inform the House that Her Majesty's Government have been obliged to withdraw recognition from the Kabaka, the Native Ruler of Buganda, which is a Province of the Uganda Protectorate. The relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Baganda are regulated by an Agreement signed in 1900.
There we get the first matter which is rather new. The relations between ourselves and the Kabaka of Buganda are regulated by the Treaty of 1904 and by


the Agreement of 1900. There are the instructions under which the Resident Governor was sent out in years gone by, and I would particularly call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the Treaty of 1894, which is important. He went on to say that the Kabaka had addressed his letter to the Governor, and:
Before my reply could be given, these same two requests were presented in a memorandum attached to a resolution opposing federation adopted by the Lukiko or Council of Buganda. The Lukiko is an advisory body to the Kabaka and pays the closest attention to his wishes"—[Official Report, 30th November. 1953; Vol. 521, c. 783.]
I do not know what those words mean unless it is to suggest that the Lukiko—the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the great Lukiko of Mengo, and not the smaller Lukikos—is a mere tool or shadow of, or body to be controlled by, the Kabaka. Nothing can be further from the truth. Lord Hailey in his statements on this matter has called attention to the diminishing power of the Kabaka and has suggested that the day has come when the Kabaka dare not sack one of the three Ministers he has the power to sack, because today the Lukiko is a representative body selected on manhood suffrage from a series of councils, including the Kampala council and other important councils. It is a highly complex, very distinguished democratic body. Everyone who has observed it has said that it is one of the real democratic organisations in Africa, one of the real effective local government organisations dealing exclusively with major affairs. It has a revenue of between £250,000 and £260,000 a year, has large affairs to run, has a vast area of land and has vast local problems. It is regarded as a model of its kind.
If that be conceded—Lord Hailey has said that it is so—we then have the position that, whether the Kabaka be right or wrong—from my point of view, it is not relevant to the issue tonight—whether he be wise or unwise, whether his suggestions are crude or well-considered, he has put forward as a democratic constitutional monarch the proposals of his Parliament which have been considered by his Parliament.
He had no option but to do that. Surely that is the situation. It is said that when these things were explained to the Kabaka, when he was told that some of these things were unacceptable, he refused

at once to withdraw them. He had no powers to withdraw them. The great Lukiko of Mengo meets tomorrow, and that is the time when the King could have reported back to his Parliament what the Governor of Buganda had said. That is the time when he could have gone to his Parliament and said, "These are the facts. There has been misunderstanding. The speech was perhaps made without consideration. The right hon. Gentleman has explained that he did not really mean all he said and that it was merely"—

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I wish to register the fact that during the last three or four minutes he has entirely departed from the facts, which I will deal with later on.

Mr. Hale: I am very much obliged, but the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me at the point where I was saying that he had now said that he did not mean all he said. That is in every document circulated by the Colonial Office. It has been said that the talk about federation was a mere pious expression of a possible future ahead, had no relation to the facts of the day and was not intended to be enforced. If the right hon. Gentleman has gone back on that, he is making another volte face for which we have to be prepared.
It is then said—I should have thought, with great wisdom—that the Kabaka has said he would prefer Buganda to be handled by the Foreign Office and not the Colonial Office. If that is a ground for deposing a king and deporting a British subject from his home, family and land, the thing is laughable. There can be different views about this. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to a debate about Buganda in this House in 1900 when the distinguished hon. Member for Northampton, who was Mr. Labouchére, said on the same subject that he hoped Britain would evacuate Buganda one day. He said that his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean had complained that Buganda was under the Foreign Office and not under the Colonial Office, but he thanked God that it was not under the Colonial Office, for if it had been, we might have found ourselves engaged in war with France. Belgium and Germany, all of whom had


adjacent territories in Africa. He also said that, although he could not agree with what his right hon. Friend had said in that part of his speech, he would vote with him.
I do not suggest that I necessarily agree with those sentiments. I quote them, not with approval, but merely to show that it is at least reasonable to say that varying views may be held about the desirability of coming under the Foreign Office or the Colonial Office. If I were the inhabitant of such a territory, I should prefer to come under neither of those Ministries.
I referred to the Treaty of 1894 which was made between Mwanga and Henry Edward Colville, the British Government representative of the day. There are some facts which are relevant when we are considering the utility of the treaty. Many hon. Members wish to speak, but we ought to consider the facts. These are, briefly, the facts. The first treaty between Mwanga and the British Government was made with a representative of the British East Africa Company, in 1892. That was a reciprocal treaty in which Mwanga was guaranteed protection. At the time the treaty was signed, the British East Africa Company also indicated its intention to evacuate East Africa altogether.
Mwanga had lost his hope of obtaining African support by signing a treaty with the British, and so he was faced with the prospect of evacuation and, therefore, with the necessity of making the best terms he could with the British Government. So he signed a provisional treaty in 1893, which was duly ratified, and re-signed in 1894 in virtually the same terms. The treaty said that Her Britannic Majesty had been graciously pleased to bestow on the King of Buganda the protection he had requested in the Agreement. That is the origin of the word "Protectorate." Mwanga sought the protection of the British Crown and the guarantee of the security of his kindom. He made many concessions for it.
How can we determine what Mwanga really thought of it? After all, the agreement was never translated into the Buganda language. It was an English document. We have a contemporary document translated. We have seen the language in Mwanga's letter to the Queen

after the signing of the Treaty on 29th August, 1894. He said:
To my glorious Friend who is very good. I salute you much, together with all my chiefs in my country. I thank you very much. Thank you for helping me and my country. Thank you for saving us from all wars between ourselves. For my part, I accept the treaty between you and me. I agree to befriends with you always, and your flag I accept. All the things I have in my possession are yours and yours are mine.
There were wars in Africa after that. On careful examination, they appear mostly to have been between the Catholics and the Protestants or the Catholics and Protestants and the Mohammedans, and they were supported by African troops, and Mwanga ended his days as a deportee in the Seychelles Islands. Mwanga was a Mohammedan during the Mohammedan occupation, a Roman Catholic during the Catholic occupation and a Protestant when the treaty was signed, and, although it is not on record, I should think that when he was deported to the Seychelles he was regarded as a militant agnostic. There are points about his record which will not bear the closest examination, but he did try to come to an agreement to get protection.
Mwanga was the degenerate son of a very great king. Mutesa, his father, was one of the great kings of Africa. The family with which we are dealing is one which can trace its way back for generation after generation in the history of Africa. This is one of the few areas of Africa which has a history going back through the centuries and a history of modest civilisation.
Mutesa saw the establishment of Christianity in Buganda. He saw the Church Missionary Society come in and save Buganda when private enterprise was about to evacuate it. He saw the Church Missionary Society raise money in this country in the days when people were keenly interested in colonial affairs. He saw this even when the machine gun was about to be invented and used for restoring law and order in the African territories. Even then, the heart of Britain would have been moved over a matter of this kind. Even in those days there were people who packed meetings and subscribed money to try to spread civilisation and law and order throughout Africa.
I have said what I had to say in seconding this Motion with, I hope, moderation. I have tried not to say one word which would exacerbate the situation. I have tried not to assert rightness of one side or the other on the merits of the case. But I should have thought that there was one comment which would have the support of the whole House—that never before was a king so swiftly deposed with so little reason for so doing, and never before has a man been deported from the country of his origin with so little semblance of law and with so little justification being shown. Even at this late hour, I challenge any hon. Member opposite to tell me under what law, under what rule, under what treaty or under what agreement these powers are exercised.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): Paragraph 6 of the Uganda Agreement contains these words:
So long as the Kabaka, Chiefs and people of Uganda shall conform to the laws and regulations instituted for their goverance by Her Majesty's Government, and shall co-operate loyally with Her Majesty's Government in the organisation and administration of the said Kingdom of Uganda, Her Majesty's Government agrees to recognise the Kabaka of Uganda as the Native Ruler of the province of Uganda under Her Majesty's protection and over-rule.
The Governor, with the approval of the Secretary of State, has decided, upon the facts before him, that the Kabaka is not co-operating loyally with Her Majesty's Government in the organisation and administration of the territories of Uganda. In those circumstances, there is no longer any obligation on Her Majesty's Government to recognise the Kabaka, and the Government do not so recognise him.

Mr. Hale: When the Attorney General intervenes we expect him to give us some opinion on the law. I am talking about the deportation of a British subject without trial from British territory, from the land of his birth and the land of birth of his fathers. He is a man who occupies an office of great distinction and who was exercising his constitutional powers. Will the Attorney-General be so good as to intervene and tell me where his authority for the proposition of expulsion comes from?
Let me conclude by referring to the agreement to which the Attorney-General has referred. He quoted the opening

words, almost in the form of a recital, of one of the operative clauses. That is followed by a clause that provides payment to the Kabaka of Uganda, and it is, of course, clear that we can cease making payment if we feel that he was not behaving himself. But Clause 20 says:
Should the Kingdom of Uganda fail to pay to the Uganda Administration during the first two years after the signing of this Agreement an amount of native taxation equal to half that which is due in proportion to the number of inhabitants; or should it at any time fail to pay without any just cause or excuse the aforesaid minimum of taxation due in proportion to the population; or should the Kabaka, Chiefs or people of Uganda pursue at any time a policy which is distinctly disloyal to the British Protectorate; Her Majesty's Government will no longer consider themselves bound by the terms of this Agreement.
It does not say that the Colonial Secretary sitting in Westminster can sweep him off the throne.
I said that I have spoken in terms of moderation, because I still believe that this matter can easily be reconciled. I still believe that a little sensible talk could put it right. I still believe that had there been a little sensible talk to start with, it need never have happened. I hope the time is coming when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies will really talk round a table with people about affairs, will try to reconcile conflicting views and will try to bring about a little peace. We have heard much talk from the other side about the liquidation of a great Empire. In the last two years we have seen seeds sown which will hasten that liquidation. They threaten the African Continent, and that Continent may well be liquidated in flames.

7.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) have tried to make moderate and constructive speeches. I think it is my duty to set out the whole of the facts and I will do so and deal with nearly all the points which both have raised, including the inaccuracies with which the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West was, unfortunately, interlarded.
Several months ago, in the middle of August to be precise, we became aware that a crisis might develop in Uganda and I had the advantage of seeing the


Governor, Sir Andrew Cohen, on a recent visit. The developments of this crisis have caused the Governor, Her Majesty's Government, and myself grave and mounting concern during the past six or eight weeks.
As soon as I heard of these events, that is to say, last August, I give the House my word that I was determined not to take action except in the last resort, and then only when I was quite sure that the future of Uganda was at stake. I assure the House with the greatest sincerity that throughout these many weeks I have endeavoured by every means that I could to avoid the drastic steps which, in the event, have proved necessary.
I was prepared to take any means available to me to bring the Kabaka into agreement with Her Majesty's Government and with the obligations which are governed by the 1900 Treaty. I was prepared to concede any points which did not affect vitally the future of Uganda. Throughout the whole of this period I have been in constant, almost daily, touch with Sir Andrew Cohen on what were the best methods to pursue with this object in view. I mentioned this long period and the constant consultations that have taken place in order to rebut the remark by the hon. Member for Oldham, West that these decisions were made in a frivolous, abrupt, hasty and inconsiderate way.
First, let us be quite clear about the nature of this crisis. Quite simply, the fact is that recognition has been withdrawn from the Kabaka because he has declared himself determined publicly to oppose the considered decisions and the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government. In places, the hon. Member for Oldham, West was grossly inaccurate as when he was talking about this particular point. What we sought to get from the Kabaka on this point was a declaration that he would not, in the Lukiko, openly oppose the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this matter of a unitary State. I shall come to that in a minute.
Not only was this attitude a denial of his solemn obligation under the agreement of 1900 which has in the main since regulated the relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Buganda Government, but if he had been per-

mitted to carry out his intentions into action, the orderly and progressive administration of Buganda would have been made impossible. By the attitude which he adopted and by the persistence with which he clung to it in the face of all our efforts to dissuade him, the Kabaka demonstrated quite unmistakably that he was resolved to break the Agreement of 1900.
Here, I must say a few words about that Agreement. As the House will recall, this was a compact freely negotiated and signed by the representatives of Her Majesty's Government of the time and the Buganda Government. On many occasions since it was concluded both parties to it have shown the high importance which they attached to the scrupulous observance of all its terms. For more than 50 years it has remained unaltered, save in matters of detail, and these minor amendments have only been made with the approval of both parties.
I forget whether the hon. Gentleman quoted Article 6 of the Agreement. He will forgive me if I am repeating it. It reads:
So long as the Kabaka, Chiefs and people of Uganda shall co-operate loyally with Her Majesty's Government"—
No, it was the Attorney-General who quoted it, but I must read it again—
in the…administration of the said Kingdom of Buganda, Her Majesty's Government agrees to recognise the Kabaka of Buganda as the Native Ruler of the Province of Buganda under Her Majesty's protection and overrule.
The Kabaka had provided clear evidence of his intention no longer to co-operate with Her Majesty's Government and with the Protectorate Government in the administration of Buganda, and it was upon these grounds that we have been obliged reluctantly to withdraw recognition.
The individual issue at stake may be stated quite simply, but first, I must dispose of the suggestions that the crisis has arisen over the matter of federation. The words which I used—which still seem to me very vague—on 30th June at the East African dinner undoubtedly raised apprehension in the minds of the Kabaka and his Ministers and of the Lukiko. I therefore thought it necessary to give categorical assurances on this point, and I gave the Kabaka the assurances in the following terms with which, I fear, I must trouble the House:


Her Majesty's Government has no intention whatsoever of raising the issue of East African federation either at the present time or while local public opinion on this issue remains as it is at the present time.
Her Majesty's Government fully recognises that public opinion in the Protectorate generally and Buganda in particular, including the opinion of the Great Lukiko, would be opposed to the inclusion of the Uganda Protectorate in any such federation; Her Majesty's Government has no intention whatsoever of disregarding this opinion either now or at any time, and recognises accordingly that the inclusion of the Uganda Protectorate in any such federation is outside the realm of practical politics at the present time or while local public opinion remains as it is at the present time.
As regards the more distant future, Her Majesty's Government clearly cannot state now that the issue of East African federation will never be raised, since public opinion in the Protectorate, including that of the Baganda, might change, and it would not in any case be proper for Her Majesty's Government to make any statement now which might be Used at some time in the future to prevent effect being given to the wishes of the people of the Protectorate at that time.
But Her Majesty's Government can and does say that, unless there is a substantial change in public opinion in the Protectorate, including that of the Baganda, the inclusion of the Protectorate in an East African federation will remain outside the realm of practical politics even in the more distant future.
The Secretary of State is confident that you will agree that in this statement he has gone as far as he possibly can and has given you safeguards which cannot fail to be regarded as satisfactory.
What the hon. Members for Eton and Slough and Oldham, West forgot to mention was that at that time the Kabaka himself was entirely satisfied, and still remains entirely satisfied, with these assurances. That, I think, should dispose once and for all of the suggestion which was hinted at—in fact, stated categorically today—that the crisis which has led to the deposition of the Kabaka has anything to do with the question of federation; it has not.
After the Kabaka had expressed himself as satisfied with the assurances that I had given him on federation, there remained three points at issue. The first was that responsibility for the affairs of Buganda should be transferred to the Foreign Office. I explained that such an arrangement would be quite inappropriate, and although I do not think the Kabaka was satisfied with my reasons for rejecting the suggestion, he did not pursue the matter at the time and has

certainly not done so since. We were left then with but two points outstanding, but they concerned matters of such vital importance to the future of the Protectorate that failure to resolve them must inevitably lead to crisis. The first was the refusal of the Kabaka to co operate in the appointment of members to represent Buganda on the Legislative Council.
Perhaps I might for one moment turn aside to correct the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, whose facts were not correct when he gave the composition of the Legislative Council. There will not be 29 officials in the new Legislative Council, there will be 19 or 20. The balance of the Government side will be made up by a cross-bench—eight or nine members—composed of the chairmen of the statutory boards and of prominent members of the public, including Africans.
The members of the cross-bench are free to vote and speak as they like, except on a three-line Whip. This is the creation of Sir Andrew Cohen's ingenious and liberal mind, and this proposal for the new Legislative Council was as far as he wished to go and received my approval at the time he put the proposals forward. I thought it as well to correct the hon. Gentleman on these rather vital points, on which he was so much astray.
Under the new Constitution which is to be introduced early next year, there are to be three Baganda members, and the intention was that as in the past the Kabaka should put forward names for the approval of the Governor. He made clear that far from nominating members, he would actively oppose the appointment even directly by the Governor, of any Baganda members at all. Thus Uganda would have been left without representation, and when matters vitally affecting the interests and well-being of the people of Buganda were being discussed in the Legislative Council, they themselves would have been left without the means of voicing their opinions or their desires.
This was a serious, indeed it was a critical matter for the Baganda but, when I turn, as I must, to the demands that Buganda should be made an independent State—a demand which the Kabaka has


not withdrawn, but has continually repeated—the House will see that the whole future of the Protectorate of Uganda is involved. I would go further and say that the whole future of Uganda is manaced.
It is necessary for me at this point to touch quite a bit on the background against which I say this. The House remembers that there are four provinces in Uganda—North, East, West and Buganda itself. The Western Province includes three native States with separate, but similar agreements, referred to generally as Agreement States. Buganda is also a native State, but is much the largest in the country. It comprises about 17,000 square miles out of the 80,000 which is the area of Uganda and it has over 1,300,000 inhabitants.
Regarding the relationship between the Baganda and the Protectorate as a whole, Article 3 of the Agreement of 1900 recites this:
The Kingdom of Buganda in the administration of the Uganda Protectorate shall rank as a province of equal rank with any other provinces into which the Protectorate may be divided.
Clearly, it was the intention from the very beginning that Buganda should be an integral part of the Protectorate. Indeed, as recently as March this year the Kabaka publicly joined with the Governor in stating—and I quote:
The Kingdom of Uganda will continue to go forward under the government of His Highness the Kabaka and play its part, in accordance with Article 3 of the Agreement, as a province and a component part of the Protectorate.
Thus, for more than 50 years, Buganda has been administered as a unitary State and, as everyone here knows, it has shown steady progress. That progress has been greatly accelerated in recent years and the progress applies equally to social, economic and political matters. All the efforts of the British Administration have been to make Uganda grow into a prosperous State with advancing political institutions. I must mention these things, because they are the things that are threatened by the present crisis.
On the political side, I need only refer to the enlargement of the Legislative Council, the development of local government, and the plan to hand over to the Buganda Government responsibility for

certain important services. These are proposals for which Sir Andrew Cohen has been responsible, and which I have approved. On the economic side—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in many of these matters, has played a worthy part—there have been great advances.
Eight ginneries have been made available to the African co-operatives to gin their cotton. The Government are engaged in reorganising the coffee industry to give Africans an opportunity to play a part in the processing of their own crops. On the social side, a vastly expanded programme of education, which will cost no less than £10 million in the next eight years, has been initiated.
I am sure that it is not necessary to dwell very long upon the disastrous effect of trying to split up what is already a small enough country into smaller pieces. Buganda lies athwart the main lines of communication from the west to the east coast of Africa, which run up the Congo and the great lakes, through Buganda, and down to Mombasa. Every season there is large-scale migration of workers from the Congo to Kampala and the industries of the Eastern Province. I need not emphasise its key position athwart the communications.
Further, the Owen Falls power station lies astride the Victoria Nile, one end of the dam is in the Eastern Province and the other end of the dam and the power station are in Buganda. The commercial capital of Uganda is at Kampala, which is in Buganda. The political capital and the airfield are at Entebbe, also in the Province of Buganda. Both have grown up in the belief that Buganda would remain the geographical centre of the country and an integral part of the Protectorate. Kampala's commerce has close ties with Jinja in the Eastern Province, which is the chief port on Lake Victoria.
All the chief services of the Protectorate are centred in Kampala or Entebbe—Makerere University College, Mulago Training Hospital, and the main European and Asian hospitals, the Roman Catholic and Anglican cathedrals, Kampala Technical School, which is still being constructed, and the Community Development Centre at Entebbe, which is also under construction. I apologise for developing what I know most hon. Mem-


bers are familiar with, but, in short, the prosperity and expanding national life which I predict, and for which we should all work, would receive a fatal blow if Uganda were split up into more than one State.
Here is the crux of the whole matter. Could the Kabaka be allowed to state publicly that he intended to separate from the rest of Uganda? It was on this point chiefly that the discussions, with which I have been kept constantly in touch, took place between the Governor and the Kabaka. I want to go into some of the circumstances in order to rebut any ideas that hon. Members may be harbouring that these matters were hastily discussed and dismissed summarily.
As soon as I heard about this crisis I wondered whether I should fly out to Buganda, and I think the House would acquit me of any unwillingness to fly out to the scene of trouble, but I reflected very deeply whether I should use that particular method on this occasion. The Governor was very much against it, and I agreed with him. I reluctantly abandoned it. The reasons seemed to me then and still seem to me valid. They were that it would greatly increase the local tension if the Secretary of State went out and was known to be engaged in this kind of discussion. I therefore abandoned this course, though with some reluctance, but I know that that decision was right.
Then it occurred to me to consider whether it would be suitable to ask the Kabaka to fly here and have discussions with me. I wish to explain now why I rejected that alternative. If I had been successful in persuading the Kabaka to work with Her Majesty's Government and not against them, then, of course, all would have been well and the Kabaka could have returned and the tension would have rapidly disappeared. But supposing I had not been successful, what then? The Governor advised that in that event it was out of the question for the Kabaka, having openly set himself in opposition to Her Majesty's Government, to return to the territory without the gravest fears of civil disturbance.
The unanimous view of the Governor and all his advisers was that in that event we should risk a serious upheaval. In other words, if the Kabaka had not agreed I should have had to inform him in this country that he could not return to

Uganda. I considered that this would not be treating him fairly and that I must either give him a guarantee that he should return to Buganda, or that I should not ask him here. I thought that that was right. In short, I decided that the negotiations with the Kabaka must take place in Uganda, and must be conducted by the Governor.
It is unnecessary for me to tell hon. Members that in Sir Andrew Cohen who, when I first took office, was Head of the African Division of the Colonial Office and the Governor-designate of Uganda, we have a man with a long record of fruitful and enlightened work for Africans, a man of wide and liberal views and of outstanding ability and intellectual force. I reached the conclusion that if anyone was likely to persuade the Kabaka, it would be the Governor. Moreover, it was known to me that on some other occasions, before I took office, when the Kabaka was in minor disagreement with the Colonial Office, Sir Andrew Cohen had acted in the most friendly manner to the Kabaka, and had conducted the negotiations with marked success.
I think that this disposes of the suggestion that these negotiations were quickly and brusquely dealt with. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Governor had six long interviews with the Kabaka. He first saw him on 27th October, then on 29th October, again on 3rd November, again on 6th November, again on 27th November, and for the sixth time on 30th November. I became increasingly concerned at the obdurate nature of the Kabaka's opposition, which had persisted and, indeed, had become more pronounced during these five weeks of discussion, and before his meeting on Friday last I sent an urgent telegram to the Governor.
In that telegram I told the Governor that—and these are the actual words—as "a high matter of policy" the Kabaka should be persuaded to comply with his obligations under the Agreement and that he should be persuaded not to withdraw from the very clear position that he had taken up in March. I said, in that telegram, that I relied upon the Governor to use once more his very best endeavours to persuade the Kabaka to respond to my appeal. At the same time, as the House knows, I sent the Kabaka a personal message which I circulated on Monday in the Official Report.
I next laid down the procedure, to which the Governor agreed, and I told him that on no account was he to take no for an answer at the meeting of last Friday but should give the Kabaka my personal message, together with any arguments which he thought suitable at that time. He should then allow a period of two or three days to elapse, and it was only then, if the Kabaka persisted in his refusal, this extreme step should be taken. Before he set in motion the machinery for the final act he told the Kabaka specifically that his persistence in his attitude would involve a breach of the Agreement and would entitle Her Majesty's Government to withdraw recognition.
The Governor asked the Kabaka whether he understood this and he replied that he did. All our efforts to persuade the Kabaka failed, but I can tell the House with absolute sincerity that nothing was left undone which might have induced the Kabaka to repent of the errors of his ways and take his proper part in the development, both of his own territory and its inhabitants, and of Uganda as a whole.
It remains for me to inform the House, briefly, of events since the Kabaka left Uganda. Yesterday, the Katikiro—that is the Prime Minister of Buganda—broadcast to the people of Buganda and called upon them to remain calm. This, according to my reports, they have done and the Governor has told me that he does not expect any trouble at the present time. The Katikiro also informed them that the meeting of the Lukiko would be held today. I have not received a telegraphic report of that meeting, but I understand from the Governor—whom I telephoned about half-past one this afternoon—that the Lukiko wished to send a delegation to meet me in London. I will be ready to see them.
This morning I had a long talk with the Kabaka. I did not wish to press him into further discussion of political matters beyond what he wished to say himself. He was alone, and he feels severely the loss of his sister, which I am sure the whole House deplores. This conversation could not have been more friendly. It was extremely painful to me because of the dignified and correct bearing of the Kabaka in all these matters. It was the

more painful to me because he was a member of my university and of my regiment, and a friend of my son's at Cambridge. I was able to assure him that no personal matters arose at all, but that I had a clear duty in these matters which, however painful, I must fulfil. In that conversation it was made clear to me that the Kabaka fully understood the nature of the two issues upon which this action had had to be taken and that no compromise compatible with my duties was possible.
It remains my unshakeable belief that the people of Buganda and the other peoples of the provinces of the Protectorate could not achieve that political, social and economic progress to which they aspire and for which the Governor has done such notable work unless the unity of the Protectorate was maintained, preserved and proclaimed at this moment. Unfortunately, the proposals of the Kabaka were in direct contradiction to that aim. He wishes to divide Buganda. In the past, it has sometimes been a jibe against the British, as against the Roman Empire, that their motto was "Divide and rule." In this case, as in that of Nigeria, our object is to maintain and knit together a unitary State.
I conclude by saying once more that the personal aspect of this affair is particularly painful. The action which was taken has not been taken with any haste. In fact, it has been delayed until every opportunity had been given to the Kabaka to revise and reverse his decision. We have, I believe, acted rightly and we have certainly been moved by one guiding principle, that of our desire to secure the continued advancement of all the peoples of the Protectorate, including, not least, the people of Buganda itself.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: In spite of the statement which has just been made by the Colonial Secretary, we are still very much in the dark as to exactly what is the situation in Uganda at present. The Secretary of State has given us certain immediate facts leading up to the present situation, but he has given us no picture of the background of the situation as it exists in Uganda, if indeed it is the case that this is anything more than a current difficulty that has arisen between the colonial administration in this country and the Kabaka.
I want to make it clear at the beginning of my speech that I am in no way prepared to take sides in this matter. I know very well that in Uganda there has always been a very widely held point of view in very responsible circles in that country rather contrary to the view indicated by the Secretary of State today of the purpose expressed by the Kabaka on this occasion of re-establishing the hereditary rule of the Buganda Kabaka over the whole combined Territory. That, as far as my experience goes, has been the main demand among the Baganda tribe—not the separation of Buganda from Uganda—but, on the contrary, the unity of Uganda under Buganda with its old hereditary chiefs.
I do not know whether it means that there is in Uganda at present a very strong section of opinion which would not be in favour of the attitude taken up by the Kabaka. It has not been illustrated how far the Kabaka has the support of any element in his kingdom for the attitude which the Secretary of State assured us has been taken so rigidly by the Kabaka during the negotiations. All we can be concerned about at present is the immediate action that has been taken and how far that action can be justified in the context of the rather sketchy picture as we have seen it.
On this side of the House, and I think widely throughout the country, there is very grave concern. We fear that this is merely another incident in the tragic history of the present administration of the Colonial Secretary, particularly in Africa. I remember clearly in 1951, when the present Government were elected, the reception that that event obtained in the African native Press. I remember headlines which said, "Goodbye to colonial freedom." I remember articles written in many African newspapers pointing out that now we were entering on a new phase in which all the progress which the Africans recognised had been made under the Labour colonial administration would be in peril if the Conservative Administration was going back to the old Tory imperialist conceptions of colonial administration.
They may have been right or wrong, but at least that is indicative of the kind of feeling which was already alive in Africa at the beginning of the present

Administration. Since then we have had the Central African situation, we have had the Seretse Khama issue, we have had the British Guiana situation, and we have had the complete mishandling of the situation in Kenya.
Even though the Secretary of State has assured us that the Kabaka, and the Lukiko presumably, are now prepared to accept the assurances he has given them in regard to the intention of the present Government with reference to an East African federation which would embrace Buganda as well as the other three Territories, whatever they may have said about acceptance of those assurances they may well have been uneasy in their minds—to put it mildly—before they got the assurances, and they may be a little uneasy now. Certainly, before that, the natural reaction in any Territory in Africa to the merest whisper of the possibility of a new enforced administration, after the Central African developments, would be the creation of great unrest among the people of such a Territory.
Therefore, I wonder whether the Colonial Secretary, even if he tried on this occasion to act differently from what he has done on other occasions, with all the sincerity that he protested about over and over again in his statement of a few minutes ago, and the way he endeavoured to reassure the Kabaka, has been successful in reassuring all the elements which have been disturbed by the unnecessary and harmful talk in which he engaged at the notorious dinner and which carried the implication that the Africans took.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that he had left nothing undone and that everything had been done, before he took the final, serious step, in trying to reconcile the Kabaka. He has already told us that everything was left to discussion between the Governor and the Kabaka in Uganda. He told us that he had considered the possibility of flying over to Uganda in order to discuss the very serious situation with the Kabaka, but he dismissed that, for quite understandable reasons. Then the right hon. Gentleman considered the alternative of bringing the Kabaka over here but he dismissed that also because he said that if the Kabaka would not change, we should have to tell him that he could not go back to Africa. I quite understand the position up to that point.
This matter is of such importance to Uganda and to the prestige of this country in the international field that the right hon. Gentleman might surely have considered the possibility of inviting the Kabaka as a final step, in order to impress him by the gesture and by the discussions that he might have with the Colonial Department, away from the atmosphere in which he had been carrying on those discussions hitherto. If then he still took the same view, surely it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility to allow him to go back to Uganda before taking any further action. I do not think that would have been impossible, in view of the importance and the seriousness of the matter, and it might well not have been considered.
I am more concerned about the extent to which the action which has in fact been taken by our Government and by the Colonial Secretary has legal standing. We had an interesting intervention from the Attorney-General, who was asked whether we had any authority to dethrone or depose, and then to expel, the Kabaka. The 1900 Agreement was quoted by the Attorney-General. The amusement which was caused on these benches when he did so was entirely justified, because it was a most naïve explanation. Article 6 of the Agreement says that as long as the Kabaka, chiefs and people of Uganda
shall conform to the laws and Regulations instituted for their governance by Her Majesty's Government and shall co-operate loyally with Her Majesty's Government in the organisation and administration of the said kingdom of Uganda, Her Majesty's Government agrees to recognise the Kabaka of Uganda as the Native Ruler of the Province of Uganda under Her Majesty's protection and over-rule.
Well, all right; under the agreement we are entitled to withdraw recognition of the Kabaka as ruler of Uganda. That is all right up to that point, but there is no mention of deposing him as King of Buganda or of the right to deport him, and certainly no mention of any right by ourselves as one party to an agreement—which the Colonial Secretary assured us was freely entered into by the two Sovereign authorities, Uganda and ourselves, in 1894—which was freely entered into by the two parties not only to depose but to expel the Kabaka, and above all to

take over unilateral control of the other party's territory. The Agreement says in Article 20:
Should the Kabaka, chiefs or people of Uganda pursue at any time a policy which is distinctly disloyal to the British Protectorate, Her Majesty's Government will no longer consider themselves bound by the terms of this agreement.
What are the terms of the Agreement? That we shall recognise the Kabaka and, in return for certain privileges which we enjoy under the Agreement, shall extend certain privileges to the Kabaka and his people. We shall allow him to have a salute of six or nine guns, we shall pay him and his mother a certain salary and shall extend certain other advantages under our protection, and in return we shall have certain rights and privileges. To say that we are no longer bound by the terms of that Agreement can mean nothing more than that we shall refrain from giving those advantages to the Kabaka and his people as provided in the Agreement, until an alternative arrangement is made.
The Agreement in no way provides—and I challenge the Attorney-General to show it—any right on the part of one contracting party when disagreeing with the other not only to withdraw from the Agreement but to take over unilateral control of the other party's territory and to expel the Kabaka. If the Kabaka had tried to take over our own ruler and expel him from the territory, we might have got a test case. I hope that this point will be answered, because the Secretary of State might be in serious legal difficulties over this action.
I do not want to say much more on this point. The Colonial Secretary has told us, and we welcome the announcement, that the Lukiko has asked for a delegation from it to be received in this country by the Minister and that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to receive it. Presumably it will come over, and there will be discussions. I gathered from his statement that he was prepared to discuss earnestly and seriously with it some way of overcoming the difficulties that have occurred in its territory. I hope that is going to happen. I hope that before the delegation comes the Colonial Secretary will withdraw the statement that he made in the House of Commons on Monday. 30th November, when he was asked if he


would invite the Kabaka to meet him and he said:
No, I said I would see the Kabaka if he wished to see me.
He went on:
I must make it quite clear that this decision is final."—[Official Report, 30th November, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 788.]
If this decision is final, that we are deposing and expelling the Kabaka presumably for all time from that territory, I do not see how we can enter into reasonable, sensible, peaceful negotiation with the Lukiko, particularly if that body, or a majority or the major part of it is behind the Kabaka on this occasion. I do not see how we can possibly hope for any kind of agreement from it unless the Colonial Secretary is prepared to make a statement in advance that he does not now contend that the decision that has been taken is final and irrevocable.
If that is not done, I should say that the visit of the delegation of the Lukiko to this country is not likely to achieve very much. There is no gesture that would give more reassurance to the delegation when it comes, or to the people of our own country who are interested in this matter, as well as to many millions of people abroad who are probably watching this terrible story of the progress of Tory administration of our Colonial Territories, than a clear statement by the Colonial Secretary that he is prepared to meet this delegation on a fresh basis and to reconsider, as a result of any agreement he may be able to reach with that body, the decision that has already been taken with regard to the deposition of the Kabaka, provided that the Kabaka is prepared to play his part. I appeal to the Colonial Secretary to make such a statement before the evening is out.
There is nothing more that I want to say about this matter because, as I and other hon. Members have said, we have not yet enough information about the real story behind all this to enable us to go deeply into it. But we are very seriously concerned, not only because of the apparent mishandling of this case, but because this happens to be one more in a long series of what appear to be classic blunders on the part of the Colonial Secretary in the administration of these Territories and elsewhere upon which depends so much the future and the prestige of this country.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: I am sure that the House will join with me in regretting that the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) devoted such a large part of his speech to an attack upon my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary. I felt, after the speech made by my right hon. Friend, that that aspect of this debate seemed wrong and quite out of tune with the mood of the House as a whole.
I do not think that I am called upon to comment upon the criticisms made by the hon. Gentleman, but I think it fair to say that in Colonial Territories all over the world there are men who are called upon to carry the burden of administration, to do the dull routine work of trying to ensure that these Territories move forward to better things, and who know that there is at the Colonial Office a man who will not sacrifice them on the altar of political expediency or on the lesser shrine of his own political reputation. There is no man who knows that better, or who is more grateful for the fact today than the Governor of Uganda, Sir Andrew Cohen.
The origins of the present trouble in Buganda are laid at the door of my right hon. Friend because of a casual allusion by him at a dinner in London to a closer union with East Africa. I was surprised to find myself recognising some of the phraseology used by my right hon. Friend on that occasion. It was taken direct from one of the essays in a book published by the Fabian Society in 1944, in which it is said that the era of the small, isolated independent States is over.
I am only sorry that my right hon. Friend did not at the same time make reference to the origin of his remarks. It is quite clear that it has been the policy of the Socialist Government, as it has been of the present Government, to try to ensure co-operation between States which are not themselves economically or politically viable. That, after all, is the whole principle behind our approach to the problem of Nigeria and to that of the West Indies.
I think it fair to remark that in a very interesting leading article, the "Manchester Guardian" pointed out these two major successes for the colonial policy of the present Government. If that is


true of a bigger political unit, then surely it is equally true of a smaller unit such as the Protectorate of Buganda, with which we are dealing at the present time.
I cannot think that the statement made by my right hon. Friend at that dinner departed from the general line of policy which has been worked out through the High Commission, and which Lord Faringdon held out during the controversy over federation as the right, proper and tactful way of ensuring the advantages of closer union without incorporating any of the features which he objected to in Central Africa.
Therefore, there is not only a prima facie case for not accepting the allegation that this incident arises from the speech made by my right hon. Friend, but, also, that there is other evidence as well which appears in a statement made by the Governor immediately after the deposing of the Kabaka. In his statement, Sir Andrew Cohen says:
Finally, in his message to the Baganda people the Governor has expressed his deep distress at the grave action which the Kabaka's attitude has made unavoidable. He has referred to the special efforts which he had made from the first moment he arrived in the Protectorate to be on terms of friendship with the Kabaka, who, however, did not give the Governor his confidence.
It is clear from that statement that, as far as the Governor is concerned, this problem of the relations between Her Majesty's Government in the Protectorate and the Kabaka's Government is one of long standing, going back for perhaps two full years.
Let me try to outline what I think is the background to this. It is quite clear that Sir Andrew Cohen went out to Uganda with the highest hopes, as well he might, for the future of the Protectorate. He saw the opportunity of experimenting in democratic, progressive forms of government in a Colony in Africa which, on the face of it, would appear to be far better adapted for that form of experiment than any of our Colonies there. He went there having served with the greatest effect and value in the Colonial Office.
When he arrived, one thing he clearly came up against straight away was the problem, which every administrator in Uganda has come up against in that

Protectorate, the special position claimed by the Baganda nation. It has been pointed out that the Baganda are, themselves, only roughly one-quarter of the population of the whole of Uganda. They have, for various reasons been, and have regarded themselves as, superior to the rest of the Protectorate. This is very clearly illustrated in the statement of the Great Lukiko itself. There, it reads:
Long before the coming of the European Buganda had achieved an undisputed supremacy over her neighbours. The monarch"—
that is, the Kabaka—
was accepted as the supreme ruler by the other tribes surrounding Buganda, and they owed allegiance to him.
Right from the early days of Speke, the Baganda have had a position of superiority in the Protectorate. It is a position which has resulted, partly fortuitously, because they happened to be the centre in which the missionaries settled first of all and, therefore, benefited from the advantages of education; and partly because there was already established in Buganda a strongly developed feudal system based on the Sasa and Gombolola chieftaincies, and the Baganda have always claimed, vis-à-vis the other Africans in the territory, this position of superiority.
It has been quite clear since 1946, partly as a result of the policy of the party opposite and partly as a result of our own policy, that the position of the Baganda, vis-à-vis the other members of the Protectorate, has been weakened. The position of the feudal families in the Great Lukiko itself has also been weakened. It has been an inevitable part of the democratisation of the institutions of the tribe and of the Protectorate. For instance, in 1946 there were no elected members of the Great Lukiko. After 1946, 36 elected members were included, and that number has steadily risen to the present figure of 60.
Further, in the Legislative Assembly it self, the representation of the Baganda has been proportionately reduced. Up to the present, the proportion of Baganda representatives is two out of eight, which is 25 per cent. After 1st January next year it will be three out 14, which is just over 20 per cent. It is clear, therefore, that the class which ruled the Baganda people for perhaps two or three hundred


years, and the Baganda people, themselves, in respect of the other tribes surrounding them in Uganda, are gradually feeling that their grip on the situation is loosening.
That has brought out a tribal nationalism, if I may put it that way. That is represented in the unrealistic resolutions of the Great Lukiko. Nobody who has followed the speech of the Secretary of State can believe that Buganda can remain a little isolated enclave in the middle of Africa and survive. Surely it is clear that the Baganda people as a whole cannot believe that either. It is completely unrealistic. But it is a natural reaction to the gradual evening up of influence among all the tribes, with such peoples as the Bunyoro and all the rest in the Uganda Protectorate.
What is so curious is that this problem of tribalism is not exclusive to Uganda. Mr. Nkrumah, in the Gold Coast, is facing exactly the same problem. There, he has decided that the privileged position which was enjoyed by the Ashanti will no longer continue. It has led almost to a split in his party. It has produced very strong feelings among the Ashanti. He is, therefore, facing the same problem which will be faced in other parts of Africa and which exists in Buganda today. That is the reversion to the tribal loyalties during a period when events and the whole of present day political influences are moving towards a linking of tribes with tribes, and a general levelling of their respective customs, traditions and power.
I feel, approaching the problem from that point of view, that it is absolutely clear that the Secretary of State could have taken no other decision in the circumstances than the one he has taken. I believe that it is in the interests not only of the Baganda people themselves, but of the Uganda as a whole. It is most unfortunate and unhappy that the Kabaka should have taken the stand that he did. He may have had his own private reasons for doing it. We do not know. Many of us who met him when he was over here during the Coronation were greatly impressed with his personality and dignity. But in these matters—and we know it from the experience of our own history—one has to take into consideration not merely personalities but the interests of the community, of the nation as a whole.
I am quite sure that in these circumstances my right hon. Friend's decision will enable the Governor to continue with the reforms which he intends to introduce and to bring nearer the day when we shall find in Uganda a model experiment in democratic government, which will hold out hope not only for East Africa but for Africa as a whole.
I would remind the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that if he takes this matter to a Division he will be criticising not my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary but primarily the Governor of Uganda. I cannot believe that those of us—and I am sure there are many here—who know the Governor of Uganda, who know his liberal and progressive point of view, would be prepared to go into the Lobby tonight in support of a Motion of censure upon such a very distinguished servant of the Crown.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), referred early in his speech to the need for co-operation between the small units of the Commonwealth. Personally, I should entirely agree with him. I think that the difficulty is in the method by which to achieve that co-operation and the speed with which it is brought into being.
The disagreements over Central African Federation were not upon the desirability of federation so much as upon the need to carry the Africans with us, and to ensure that we were going some way towards solving the social difficulties which exist in multi-racial communities. Later in his speech he very pertinently drew attention to those difficulties—the tribal traditions, the supremacy of one tribe, and the trouble which arose when one attempted to mingle with those traditions our traditions of Western democratic government and progress. He may very well have put his finger on one of the chief underlying causes for the trouble in Uganda, but I was not entirely convinced that, having pointed to those causes, he was justified in saying that the solution found by the Secretary of State was the only possible and desirable one.
There are very serious difficulties in this territory. As the Secretary of State has said, the Kabaka refused to appoint


representatives to the Council, and desired to secede and so break up Uganda. I do not think that anyone in this House would approve either of those steps. The Secretary of State, in turn, has taken a most serious step in depriving this man of his liberty and deporting him from his territory. That is, possibly, as serious a step as sentencing him to imprisonment.

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend is not depriving him of his liberty. There is no justification for that statement.

Mr. Grimond: Many of the Attorney-General's distinguished predecessors would take a curious view of his argument that freedom exists for a man when he is banished from his country. The classical writers of Greece and Rome would surely have held that banishment is incompatible with freedom.
The Secretary of State should have told us more about the reasons which led the Kabaka to propose these serious steps, such as secession. It may be that for diplomatic reasons the right hon. Gentleman was unwilling to go into them in too great detail, but the hon. Member for Colchester has indicated what many of us thought might be one of the underlying causes of this difficulty. The Secretary of State merely told us that the Kabaka had refused to co-operate. Presumably the Kabaka advanced some reasons for his refusal, and the House is entitled to know more from the Government as to what his arguments were. Why did the Kabaka want to come under the Foreign Office? If any of his reasons or arguments are justifiable, what is being done, or what can be done, to rectify the matter? This debate will not have fulfilled its chief purpose unless these questions are answered.
We are bound to point out to the Government that the Commonwealth has suffered some very serious shocks recently. Our people are a little bewildered, when they wake up in the morning to find that the Constitution of Guiana has been suspended, and the Kabaka has been deposed and, in a different context, to learn of the events in the Sudan. These difficulties cannot be attributed to individual Members. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) or the

Colonial Secretary wants to break up the Commonwealth.
These difficulties arise from deep, continuing and underlying causes which concern us all. We are all concerned to see the Commonwealth become more united and strong. The differences between us do not lie in that direction. They lie in the methods by which we are to achieve greater unity and strength. That is the only point in these debates. The difficulties and stresses of multi-racial societies cannot be solved in a day. I think that both sides have to make concessions, we and those who have different traditions. I personally think that it is an error to attempt to export our particular form of Parliamentary democracy and to assume that people brought up in a tribal form of life will necessarily work it successfully.
It may be foolish, in the 20th century, to expect that we can say to a smaller country, be it in South America or in Africa, "We do not want to influence you. We leave the decision to you. You can decide whether you will be completely independent or not." I would go so far as to agree with the Colonial Secretary, even though his recent speech in its particular context may have been wrong, that the fact remains that any small country of this kind is going to be drawn into some larger unity, economic and military, and the choice of complete independence is really not one that can be offered to each colonial people in the world today.
The choice we should leave them is, between the larger unities, which is to influence them? I believe that we should encourage them by all reasonable means consonant with our traditions to join the British Commonwealth and the Western tradition, but I also say that to do that we have got to treat them socially with respect, gradually eliminating this bar between people of different colour, trying to weld their own systems, tribal and otherwise, with ours, and bringing in the other nations of the Commonwealth as far as we can into this general process.
I do not believe we can solve this problem by sending troops, or by the deportation of individuals or the suspension of their rights.
I do not know whether we shall hear from the Government a further explanation of the underlying causes which, in


their view, led to this situation, or of the steps that they intend to take in this territory to eradicate them and reassure it as to its future, but, as I have said, they seem to be the matters with which this House should be concerned, and it is after hearing their views on these matters, I personally feel, that we should make up our minds whether to go into the Division Lobbies or not.

8.52 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: We heard from the Colonial Secretary tonight a very lucid account of the events recently in Uganda, but I feel that the right hon. Gentleman missed a very great opportunity because he failed to give the kind of assurance that, I think, would have any effect at all upon the Great Lukiko and upon the people of Uganda. He failed, in other words, to give any indication of what, in the eyes of the Government, is the ultimate future of Uganda. We have had disclaimers from the right hon. Gentleman of the suggestion that he inadvertently made that Uganda might be included in some form of East African federation. He has now stated categorically that there is no such intention on the part of the Government unless the antagonistic feeling in Uganda towards this proposal should be radically reversed.
One may suggest that the remark itself was a little tactless on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, to say the very least, if he recalls the previous references to this very subject made by his predecessors over a very long period of time. There has been nothing which has aroused greater suspicion for many years past in Uganda than this suggestion that it may be drawn into the orbit of other East African Territories. We have in the statement of the Great Lukiko itself references to a number of occasions on which the people of Uganda did make it very clear indeed that they regarded any such proposition with the utmost disfavour.
However, I am not proposing to pursue that line, because we are told that the Kabaka, at any rate, has accepted the assurance of the Government, although obviously one must recognise that the suspicions aroused by that statement of the right hon. Gentleman are bound to colour the general attitude of the people in Uganda towards any assurances that may be given.
What concerns me more is the position in Uganda, to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer. It is relatively easy to take the legalistic line on this matter, although my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) has already cast doubts upon the position of the country under treaty obligations. One can easily dismiss the suggestion that Uganda might revert to Foreign Office administration. It is not unnatural that the idea should have occurred to them, because, after all, they have heard that if people are under Foreign Office administration they at least have the opportunity, even if they do not use it to the best advantage, as in the Sudan, of deciding their own future. The suggestion that they might revert to the Foreign Office is therefore not unnatural, although it is one which we on this side of the House obviously cannot support.
But that does not touch the fundamental matter, which is indicated in a paragraph of the statement of the Great Lukiko, in which they refer to the policies of trusteeship and partnership and try to point out that in their eyes there is a difference between trusteeship and partnership. Their view of their position vis-à-vis Her Majesty's Government, they suggest, is that Her Majesty's Government are in a position of trusteeship, which means that the people should be allowed to develop in their own way and along the lines which seem best to them. The lines which seem best to them are against a constitutional development which would make them a multi-racial partnership State.
That seems to me to be the fundamental fear in the minds of these Africans, for they have been brought up to regard Uganda as being different in character from, for example, Kenya or from Southern Rhodesia, which are multi-racial States. They have been brought up to regard themselves as an African State, with some Europeans there—missionaries, traders, civil servants and so on—and with an increasing number of Indian business and commercial interests, which quite clearly they regard with apprehension; and until very recently they have considered themselves as being in all essentials an African State in contradistinction to a multi-racial State.
Under the new constitutional proposals, which are certainly an advance in


democracy in one sense, they see themselves being asked to adopt a constitution which makes certain changes in the representation in that territory, including this proposal for the Governor's cross-bench, which, of course, is a device which is already used in Kenya. I suggest that one of the fundamental apprehensions which underlies the unrest in Uganda is that they feel that they are willy-nilly being drawn along this road towards being a multi-racial community, which they do not wish to be.
It is perfectly true that there are other factors in the situation. There is a good deal in what the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) said about the Baganda having regarded themselves as persons in a privileged position, and the analogy drawn with the Gold Coast and the comparison with the Ashanti are reasonably fair, but what interests me above all is that by his failure to reassure the people of Uganda upon their ultimate future, the Secretary of State appears to be doing in Uganda what he has already most unfortunately succeeded in doing in Nyasaland and other parts of Africa—uniting the traditional rulers, of whom the Kabaka is the most notable example, with the politically-conscious Africans
They are united in their feeling that they wish to oppose a system which is likely in their view fundamentally to affect their future status. It is not only the Kabaka and the Great Lukiko who have been agitating in Buganda in recent weeks. I have a quotation here from the local Press in which it is perfectly clear that the Uganda National Congress and representatives of the Co-operative organisations and so on have also been deeply disturbed by the trend of events in Buganda.
So, although there are certain particular problems in relation to the position of the Kabaka himself and the traditional rulers of Buganda, they are by this kind of action being brought into a partnership with persons who have very different social positions and social influence, but who equally feel with them that the future of Buganda as a society is being threatened by the kind of developments which are proceeding—partially this constitutional development and partially the

economic development—which, advantageous as they are in many respects, also bring with them, naturally enough, an influx of people—European technicians and foremen, for example—which is introducing a fresh element into the pattern of Buganda society.
That is obviously a necessary corollary for industrial development in a country which cannot itself produce technicians; but, as we have seen in many other parts of the world, it is an extremely frightening development for the local people, who feel that their own position and their own independence is thereby being threatened, although it may bring them certain material advantages.
I think that this is the real clue to the uneasiness in the territory at the present time, and I am fortified in this opinion by reading an extremely interesting article in "The Times" of 21st November, written by their special correspondent, in which I thought he made very clear the underlying causes of unrest in Uganda. He concluded upon a note which seemed to me to be most emphatically the right one, that the only thing that would really meet the needs of the situation at the present time was a clear declaration of the goal towards which Uganda is to move.
That is not a statement by any Left-wing politician in this country or any agitator in Uganda. That is a considered statement from a highly-trained observer, working on the staff of "The Times," and I would most earnestly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he hopes to have any success whatsoever with the deputation which is to come here, he should take into account not only the matter on which he touched this evening—perhaps I might have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman for one moment, because this is a serious matter.

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Lady must not think that I was not paying attention because I was speaking to my right hon. Friend. She might like to know that I consider that she is on one of the most important points in the whole of this subject. This gives me an opportunity of saying that we regard the future of Uganda primarily as an African State with the proper safeguards for the minorities. I think that she is on a perfectly sound point.

Mrs. White: I am glad to have that assurance. If the right hon. Gentleman is so fully aware of this point, why did not he emphasise it in his own statement? If it has to be drawn out of him accidently by intervention in debate, that seems to me to show that he has not got the matter in full perspective, and if he was thinking of leaving it to whoever is to reply, I think that it is a statement which should have been made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government by the senior Minister responsible for this matter.
I conclude by re-emphasising that none of the arguments about the position in Buganda, the difficulties of democratisation, the diminishing number of representatives proportionately with Uganda in the Legislative Council, is of itself of fundamental importance. All permit of discussion. However, it is clear that unless the Government are prepared to give the kind of assurances which will convince the Africans on this major question, they can look forward only to a series of extremely difficult situations in this territory, which we all believe should be one of the most prosperous territories in the whole of Africa.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: As there is not much time left, I shall not reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). However, it is not unreasonable to say that I regret that she should spoil what is admittedly a perfectly genuine point by trying to inject into the debate a small particle of venom against my right hon. Friend.
It is very noticeable that the personal attack upon my right hon. Friend has diminished in vigour, if it has not, as it ought to have done, disappeared. When the news of the very grave step which my right hon. Friend has taken was first announced it was greeted with howls. Nothing could have been more emphatic than the challenge to resign which came from the Opposition. As to the attack which was launched today, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) has not been in the Chamber to see how it has been followed up. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) launched the attack with considerably more restraint than might have been expected

from some of the utterances previously made. Anyone who heard the speech of my right hon. Friend, in his own defence, must have realised that once that speech had been made the pith of the attack had gone.
I wish to say, very sincerely, that it is impossible to separate such an incident as this in Uganda, with its sad consequences, from the rest of the colonial picture such as in Malaya—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Peyton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait before he cheers. I should be very much obliged if he would listen and give me a chance to develop an argument which is not exclusively a party point.

Mr. Silverman: I have been listening so far.

Mr. Peyton: The serious point is that this is the sort of thing which has developed all over our Colonial Territories. In Malaya, Kenya and Guiana we have seen very similar occurrences.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the cause of the trouble in Malaya and Kenya is entirely different from that in Africa? Is not the one Communism and the other nationalism?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The discussion on the Motion must be confined to the terms on which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brookway) received the leave of the House to proceed. It is not in order to discuss wider colonial questions on this Motion.

Mr. Peyton: I was trying to indicate that the factors which operate in this case also operate in many other fields. None of these problems is a short-term one. They are all serious long-term problems.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) knows only too well, these problems are not born overnight, but live a long life before they emerge into the light. The right hon. Gentleman who, I hope, will give some attention to these matters, will be the first to admit that no one who has occupied the position of Secretary of State for the Colonies can entirely dodge responsibility for the present-day problems of the


Colonial Empire. On this particular point I deeply regret that hon. Members opposite should be so precipitate on these colonial problems as to launch attacks before, as they admit, they have the adequate information on which any attack can be based.

Dr. H. Morgan: We have plenty of information.

Mr. Peyton: I do not think that the solution to this problem or any of the others to which I would not be in order in referring to now will be found if we allow in this House a situation to be created under which, in an emergency or any reversal in colonial progress, one of the main parties in the State feels it encumbent upon itself to launch vicious and personal attacks upon whoever is the Minister at the time.
The solution to these great problems will be found only with patience, good will and hard work. In this part of Africa, as in others, we are witnessing not the effects of the political policy of any one party; we are witnessing the effects of the launching upon a barely awakened Continent of the full virus of Western civilisation. The problems which we will be called upon to face in the future are immense, and I very much hope we in this House will be able, somehow or other, to reach a point where we can put colonial affairs genuinely above party politics.
I do not for one moment seek to impugn the sincerity of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, but I ask him, in the name of colonial peace and in the name of those people whose interests he advocates with such eloquence, to be careful and to pause before he gives the appearance elsewhere, which doubtless he does not intend, that this is a political matter and one which can be used in British party politics.

Mr. Brockway: My concern is not a conflict in British politics. My overwhelming concern is the interests of the peoples in the Colonies, and one has got to express one's views in this House otherwise all over Africa they will be turning against this House and against the Government.

Mr. Peyton: I fully appreciate the view and the aim of the hon. Gentleman, but

what I am saying to him is that sometimes he is in danger of releasing something very different from what he intends by these repeated assaults upon the Minister, which come so monotonously and which, as in the case of today's debate, are unfounded. I think the hon. Gentleman's own sincerity might lead him very far astray.

Mr. Grimond: While the hon. Gentleman may deplore the form of the debate—I do not say anything about that—surely it is a perfectly proper matter to raise and debate in Parliament. If we should not discuss important questions, such as this, there is little left for us.

Mr. Peyton: I hope I have not given the impression that I deplore the fact that this matter should have been discussed in this House, but what I am deploring—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) should have misunderstood it, because I had hoped it was very clear—was that these difficult matters should not be made the vehicle of a vicious and venomous attack upon my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman suggests that there has been a vicious and venomous attack upon his right hon. Friend, to whom we both referred in terms of personal esteem, as I always do. Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what are the words he refers to which would justify that?

Mr. Peyton: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House when I started my speech. [An Hon. Member: "Where was he?"] If the hon. Gentleman, who helped to launch this debate, is interested in its progress, he has not been very conspicuous. [An Hon. Member: "Ask him where he was."] I will repeat one thing I said at the beginning, which was that when my right hon. Friend announced this decision earlier in the week it was greeted with an exceedingly venomous response and action from that side of the House, and I thought that was to be deplored.
The position which faces us in Buganda and the rest of the Colonial Empire is this: Parliament is the trustee of these territories and none of us, no matter what benches we sit on, can escape a slight measure of responsibility in a matter


which deeply concerns the welfare of all races and of all colours. It ill becomes us in this House, with those great responsibilities, to face them in a mood where party gain outweighs them. I believe, too. that it is most unworthy of any who are conscious of the larger picture to seek to use this issue as an attack on any Minister, no matter to what party he may belong.
I accept the very sincere speech which was made by my right hon. Friend to night and I hope, I believe with reason, that there are many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who, when they search their own hearts and minds on this difficult matter, will feel that he has acquitted himself with great distinction and with great credit.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I propose to be brief, Mr. Speaker, because I know that both sides of the House are anxious to hear the concluding speeches. This is the first time that I have taken part in a debate on colonial affairs, and I would not seek to do so now were I not deeply concerned at what has been happening in recent days. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) made a speech of some heat and, although he might not have meant it, along party lines, begging the House to approach the matter in a non-partisan spirit.
I wish to raise three points. First, I think it is clear to the House, as it will be to the country, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State made a colossal blunder in the speech which he delivered during, I think, the month of August, but certainly some time ago. Being conscious of the trouble that was caused in Africa, he felt it necessary to send an explanation to the leaders of the people and to assure them that his speech did not mean what he said.
I feel that ordinary people in this country have had their consciences aroused at the repeated outbreaks of trouble within the Colonial Empire. They are asking where next trouble will arise. It can hardly be a coincidence that all these troubles follow in the wake of the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Hon. Members: Party politics.

Mr. Hale: Hon. Members opposite might well talk about keeping it above party politics.

Mr. Thomas: I confess to being a Socialist and I approach this matter from a Socialist angle, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's name is striking a chill of fear in the minds of coloured people. That is why I feel that as long as he holds his office there is a likelihood of trouble. It may well be that other hon. Members think that the right hon. Gentleman does not deserve the name and reputation which he suffers or enjoys.

Mr. Frederic Harris: It is in the hon. Member's imagination.

Mr. Thomas: It is not in my imagination that a king has been dragged out of his territory and brought here, that he has been deprived of the right to go back to his people, and that the Secretary of State is saying to one who has enjoyed the confidence of his Government and his own people that he should no longer have the right to enter into free dealings with the people of Buganda. I feel convinced—and that is why I sought permission to speak tonight—that we are seeing a recrudescence of a spirit which was fashionable before the First World War but which is resented in increasing measure by enlightened people throughout the world today. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, who may be convinced that he has acted rightly in this matter, is none the less responsible, by his blundering speech earlier in the summer, for the trouble which faces us today.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: When on Monday afternoon I heard the statement by the Secretary of State for the Colonies announcing the decision which he intimated to the House, I confess that I was shocked and dismayed. It was my very great privilege and pleasure two and a half years ago to go to Uganda for a very short visit. At the time that I went there, the people in Uganda were deeply concerned about a trouble that had been growing more acute month by month.
Uganda is an important cotton-producing country. The cotton is grown by the Africans, but the ginneries were practically all owned by members of other races, in the main Asians. Over the years there


has been trouble, sometimes serious trouble and even bloodshed, about this economic dispute which often became entangled in racial disputes. I met representatives of all the people. I met the Africans and asked them, "What do you want, what are your demands?" They said that they felt that they, as the producers of the cotton, ought to be allowed to gin it themselves and not see their product handed over to others who made big profits while they lived in comparative poverty.
I discussed this problem with them and we eventually arrived at what I thought then and still think now—and here I believe we are at one with the Secretary of State—was not only a solution but a great venture, for the future success of which I hope that we all give our very best wishes. It is the method by which Africans, through their co-operative societies, have their own ginneries. By that means we have begun to remove what for many years has been a source of contention oftentimes threatening the peace of Buganda.
Some time later it was also my privilege to recommend the appointment of Sir Andrew Cohen as Governor of Uganda. I believed then, and I believe now, that it was a good choice. I have the greatest regard for him, for his ability, for his character and for his deep devotion to the African peoples and his deep desire for their progress. For these personal reasons, when I came to the House and heard that trouble had broken out in Uganda, and that this action had been taken I realised that this seemingly one peaceful spot in Africa was now to follow the others. I must say to the House, to the country and to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), that the country is deeply disturbed about Africa.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Member has referred to me. All I was attempting to say in my speech was that these problems are not immediately caused but have their roots well back in the past. I say to the right hon. Member that it is less than fair when he refuses to admit that there is some continuing responsibility in these matters.

Mr. Griffiths: Of course there is continuing responsibility for everyone. I admit that; is that what the hon. Member wants? For the moment what I want

him to say is whether he is happy about affairs in Africa.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Member asked me a question. I did not want to interrupt him, but he asked whether I am happy about affairs in Africa. My answer is what I tried to say in my speech. There are immense problems in Africa about which no one could be happy, but which will not be solved without universal good will in this country.

Mr. Griffiths: All I say is that if this House does not at this time express its anxiety about Africa, it loses its right to speak for the British nation because there is deep concern which is widespread and not confined to one party, one section, or one class.
But we thought that Uganda, at any rate, was immune from all this. When the decision was made I did my best—[Interruption.] We all listened quietly and with attention to the Secretary of State, but since I began to speak there have been murmers from the other side of the House. I questioned the Secretary of State on Monday. My anxiety at this stage in this very unhappy conflict was that the Secretary of State and the Government should not close the door. I made a suggestion, in a question to the right hon. Gentleman, which I hoped he would accept. He did not accept it. I repeated that suggestion to the Prime Minister in the hope that he would accept it, but he did not accept it either. I wish they had done so, for my anxiety was that before this matter reached a stage in which final decisions were made with consequences that no one, neither the Secretary of State, myself nor anyone in this House, can envisage, action for a settlement in Uganda should be taken.
It is very important for us to try to understand why the Kabaka, the Lukiko and the people of Buganda have taken these steps. Unless we understand why they have taken these steps, we shall not know what is the problem that we have to solve. I have done my best to seek to understand what is behind this and why they have put forward these proposals. We must realise that they did not put forward the proposals until August of this year—not last year nor the year before. The Secretary of State said this evening that this crisis began to develop in August. I therefore sought every oppor-


tunity I had to find out why. I have come to the conclusion that the root of this trouble lies in fears and that what we have to do is to apply ourselves to the problem of removing those fears.
Let me begin with August, and with the speech of the Secretary of State. That speech was made in London and was scarcely publicised in this country, but it was blazoned in every newspaper in East Africa, the English newspapers to begin with. It was reprinted in other newspapers published in the native languages. An English newspaper said right across the front page:
A new Dominion envisaged in East Africa.
It went on to describe how the Secretary had made this statement and had looked forward to the future when there would be a federation in East Africa. We must realise that the speech was made in July and was widely publicised in East Africa at a time when Africa was disturbed about the Central African federation, by controversies and fears, and by the view that we were setting up a federation against the wishes of the Governments there. In that atmosphere it comes out that Her Majesty's Government envisage that there would at some time be a federation in East Africa.
Reference has been made to the memorandum that has been submitted by the Great Lukiko of Buganda. They may have interpreted the speech of the right hon. Gentleman wrongly, but that is not the point. It is essential to our relationship with a people of this kind to understand how these fears have been aroused. Let me quote the Memorandum:
We, the undersigned, to wit, the members of the Great Lukiko of the Buganda Kingdom, on the behalf of the people whom we represent and on our own, wish to bring both to Her Majesty's Representative in Uganda and to Her Majesty's Government at home the great alarm with which we received the words of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, which were reported in the issue of the "East African Standard" of 2nd July, 1953, to the effect that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government in future to federate the three East African Territories, Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika. The people of this Kingdom were alarmed because of their well-known dislike and fear of the federation of the three Territories. They demanded that the Great Lukiko should give expression, through all possible legitimate channels, of their feelings about this subject.
Then they proceed to put their demands. They say that the speech was taken by the people of Uganda as a

declaration of policy by Her Majesty's Government and as a declaration of their intention to bring about federation. Please remember that they were not thinking of federation in a vacuum but in the context of what was happening in Central Africa. That is the first fear. It is not the only one. There are others. This is the problem we shall all have to face, and it is very important.
An hon. Gentleman opposite referred to the virus of Western civilisation. The fact is that Uganda is at the beginning of a new era in its history. In a few months Her Majesty will open the Owen Falls. There are resources, and it may well be very rich resources, in Uganda. Is that the beginning of a great industrial revolution? The immigrant population at the moment is not very big, but there is the fear that as the Owen Falls hydroelectric power scheme comes into operation, and industries, including such basic industries as steel, expand, so the immigrant population will substantially increase.
It is important for us to realise how the Africans visualise this development, and we must try to see that, as far as possible, their economic and political development march side by side. There is deep concern among the Africans as to what their position will be vis-à-vis the immigrant population when this industrial development comes about.
We know what economic development has meant in the other Colonial Territories for which we are responsible. We know that in the main all the important posts have been in the hands of the immigrants, mainly Europeans, and that the Africans themselves have had to take a subservient place in their own economic development.
These fears are very real at the moment, and we cannot hide that fact from ourselves. Such fears have their political impact. The Africans know that for some time to come the immigrant population would occupy all the key posts in any such development, and would therefore achieve ever greater political importance and power in the country. Whatever blessings industrial development might bring, in the end it would mean that Uganda would follow the same pattern as that of other multi racial communities in which there is a dominant and a subservient race.
I now return to the subject of the new Constitution which, basically, does not differ from the Constitution which was in operation when we on this side of the House were the Government. The figures were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), and let me say that in opening this debate my hon. Friend put his case forthrightly and honestly, as he was entitled to do. He instanced the inference behind those figures. [Hon. Members: "They were wrong."] They were slightly wrong, I know, but they did not destroy the basic principle, which is that the Africans themselves say that they have now achieved in their own country the position in which they and the immigrant population share political power. They accept that at this point in their development as a necessary transitional stage.
The Colonial Secretary said earlier in an intervention something which was of very great importance. I have discussed it since with people from East Africa. It is that the Africans want to be assured that Uganda will eventually develop into an African State; in other words, into a democracy; and in regard to these multi-racial nations, if our policy is to succeed there has to be democracy, and if there is democracy, then all of them, in that sense, will be African States. They are deeply concerned about this, and it is this background that explains what the Baganda suggested, and the proposals which they put forward which led to this crisis.
Let us see what they fear. It was the fear of penetration, and of economic developments leading to political changes which would give them a subservient place, which led them to make this decision. First, they say in this memorandum, if I may paraphrase it, "If this is the future of Buganda, if it is going to be federation with the other territories, with all that that means, if it is going to develop politically in such a way that we shall occupy an inferior position, we must take steps now to safeguard ourselves." And that is what these proposals mean. They go back to 1894. Why? Because in the Agreement of 1894 Buganda was separate from, and outside, Uganda. They say, therefore, "If Buganda is to develop into a State other than an African State, in which we

shall be subservient, our defence is to go back to the 1894 Agreement and preserve our independence as a kingdom."
Secondly, they say that they want responsibility transferred to the Foreign Office, and the reason for that flows from the first. Since they have those fears, and they believe in them quite sincerely—we should be doing ourselves a grave injustice in the House if we did not realise that—they believe that the way for them to defend themselves against what they believe will be the developments is to go back to the Kingdom of Buganda and the 1894 Agreement. It was, then, rather natural that they should suggest, "Let us go back to the Foreign Office" because in 1894 the Foreign Office was responsible for Buganda.
I believe that I have stated what is at the root of all this, beginning in August, following the speech about federation, and followed up by the fears of economic developments and their political consequences. Let us all remember that these Baganda constitute a very old African State. The present Kabaka is, I believe, the 37th of his line. They have their own form of Government, they have a Lukiko, which was a council of chiefs, and which has, with the consent andagreement—not always, but generally, given—of the Kabakas, become democratised, and is to be further democratised. Here, therefore, is an old kingdom, with old traditions, which felt that these affairs were beginning to involve it, and the natural protection was to go back to the position of a separate kingdom.
Those are their fears, and we have to address ourselves to the problem of removing them. We may think their fears unreasonable and irrational, but there they are, and unless we can remove them, then quite frankly there can be neither in Buganda nor elsewhere the progressive evolutionary development which we want, and we shall have conflict all the time.
The Secretary of State issued a statement which was accepted by the Baganda concerning the position in regard to federation, but there were words in it—and I hope that the Minister, when he replies will deal with it—which, I believe would better not have been used then,


and would better be not used now. There is reference to the future and to the desire of the inhabitants for federation. I beg the House to realise that putting in words of that kind, saying we shall not commit ourselves about the future, is not enough.
What is wanted is a categorical assurance that federation will not be imposed upon the people of Buganda unless they themselves, the Africans, want it and desire it and express their views on it. I do not think that any other assurance would remove this difficulty. In addition, we ought to get a declaration from the Government, supported by this side of the House, that the future which we envisage for Buganda is that of a democratic State within the British Commonwealth, and a democratic African State. If we can do that, we shall do a great deal to remove this difficulty.
I now come to the future. The Kabaka is in this country. He has seen the Secretary of State. I have had the opportunity of meeting him and talking with him during the day. I understand that there is a possibility, indeed a probability, that the Secretary of State will see him again. I do not think I am misrepresenting him when I say that I think he is anxious for a settlement. We all are. How dangerous it is to say, "This is our final word; this is our decision." There are times when that has to be said, but surely in a situation of this kind we should take every possible opportunity of arriving at a settlement before we say our final word. I hope that the Minister will say now that the final word has not been said and that the matter can still be discussed.
I wish to make a suggestion. I understand that the Secretary of State has had a request from Buganda that a delegation should see him. The Kabaka is here and a delegation is prepared to come here. I wish to make this suggestion to the Secretary of State, sincerely and on my own responsibility, and I also make the suggestion, across the seas, to the Governor, for whom I have a deep personal respect. I suggest not that the delegation should come here, but that the Secretary of State, taking the Kabaka with him, should go to Buganda and settle this matter. I hope that that

suggestion will not be turned down without consideration.
If the Kabaka and the delegation are here, what will happen in Buganda? This is a stage of vital importance. We do not want this affair to develop as matters have developed in other territories in Africa. Surely it is in the interests of ourselves and of Buganda that we should take every step we can to prevent this matter developing into such a serious crisis that we can see the possibility of the whole of Africa going up in flames. I therefore suggest, on my own responsibility, that the Governor himself should invite the Secretary of State and the Kabaka to go there and resume discussions in order to see whether the matter can be settled.
For those reasons, I ask that the Government will say that they have not said their final word. Speaking for my hon. Friends, and for a very large part of this nation, I can say that there is deep concern about African affairs and it is our intention to ask that an opportunity be given to the House to express its grave concern at the handling of African affairs by the present Government. We shall do that at the appropriate time. We shall accept the responsibility of deciding when to do it.
We do not want to do anything at any time which would prevent a possible settlement of the problems and difficulties of Uganda. We shall bear that in mind in deciding when the time has come to bring before this House and the country what we feel very deeply and sincerely—and what we believe the country feels, too—our grave concern about the way things are going in Africa and the way in which the Government are handling African affairs. We should not do so at a time which would make it impossible for a settlement to be arrived at.

Mr. Lyttelton: Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that any Government can leave on the Order Paper a Motion of censure until the right hon. Gentleman chooses to move it? He has already put it down.

Mr. Griffiths: I ask the Secretary of State to wait. One of his difficulties is that he never can wait. What disturbs me is not that he speaks like that to me. That does not hurt me. What disturbs


me is that he may sometimes speak in that way to people for whom he is responsible.

Mr. Lyttelton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a very simple question? He says that he does not want to censure the Government at a time when a settlement is possible. Is it his intention to take off the Order Paper the Motion which he has put down?

Mr. Griffiths: If the Secretary of State had waited I was about to say that we would take the Motion off the Order Paper—[An Hon. Member: "It is not on."] I understand that the Motion is not on the Order Paper, but if it were we would take it off so as to give every possible opportunity for this question to be settled.
On Monday I made a gesture, a suggestion, an offer to the Secretary of State. He spurned it. Whether or not he spurns this gesture, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to move a censure Motion for the time being in the hope that there will be a settlement. But we shall seek the appropriate moment to move such a Motion, for we believe that we speak for the nation in this matter, and that unless there is a change in the spirit of the administration of Africa we shall lose the whole of the Continent.

9.54 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkins on): I could not possibly add anything to the very clear, detailed and, I thought, moving account of this painful affair which my right hon. Friend gave to the House this evening. I thought he made an overwhelming case, which completely demolished the whole of the attack. Watching hon. Members opposite I felt quite sure that a large majority of them were convinced not only of the sincerity of that speech, but of its justice. It proved conclusively that in this matter no other course was possible for Her Majesty's Government, the Secretary of State and the Governor.
I have very little time, and I shall try to concentrate on the main points which the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made in his final remarks. He said that we were all anxious about Africa. Of course we are all anxious about Africa. It is a great, developing

Continent, where nationalism is growing in various ways. We share that anxiety with him. What the right hon. Member was attempting to do, in his speech, was to show that this particular action by the Kabaka at this time was due to the speech which my right hon. Friend made on a totally different occasion in June of this year.
It should be noted, first of all, that it was the Kabaka himself who first took that matter up early in August. The Great Lukiko did not discuss it at all until the end of September, and then merely repeated the three demands which the Kabaka himself had made nearly two months earlier. The Lukiko was, in fact, reflecting his views. It was not in any sense a spontaneous development on the part of the Baganda people which was embodied in that memorandum.
I think that the truth is that, although there may be, in wider circles among the Uganda people, fears of a multi-racial State, the Baganda people themselves fear more the loss of their very privileged position which they have held so long. This fear arises from constitutional reform, from economic developments, and in many other ways.
On the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman I must make one thing perfectly clear. My right hon. Friend has said that he will receive the delegation of the Great Lukiko when it arrives and discuss all the problems which arise out of these unhappy events, and, certainly, he would again see the Kabaka on any matters which he wishes to raise with him in regard to his future.
But the Kabaka has been given repeated opportunities of withdrawing from the position which he has taken up on these two vital points. He has been given repeated chances. He has talked with Sir Andrew Cohen, who has told us that he has done everything to create confidence in the mind of the Kabaka, to create trust and foster good relations between them. But Sir Andrew Cohen has told us in terms that he has had no success at all.
I should not be doing my duty by the House if I did not say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that the possibility of the Kabaka's being able to return to Uganda must be discounted. [Hon. Members: "Shame."] It is painful to us to have to say this, but that is a fact.
I think that whatever views hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House may have about the merits of this sad affair they will all agree that it is tragic and painful that this young man, born in the royal family of Buganda, with all the advantages of education, and of an honoured father who co-operated loyally with the British Government, who has been given opportunities by the Government to participate in constitutional and economic and social developments in Buganda and in the Protectorate as a whole, should have thrown all this away—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—should have thrown away all these opportunities of service to his country—

Mr. J. Hynd: So much for British protection.

Mr. Hopkins on: —and have done so out of obstinacy and a misguided conception of his duty. He has done this by means of an attempt to violate the 1900 Agreement in certain vital respects

which can only damage the interests of his subjects and all the rest of the Protectorate of Uganda.
I do not know whether it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to divide the House on this issue, but if they do so I shall certainly ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to go into the Lobby against them not only on the merits of this case, but in the belief that the vast majority of the Members of this House are now convinced that this is in the interests of good government—

It being Ten o'clock the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute past Ten o'Clock.